r - 



•^ /A . /{ff# 



Mnwg of (timptw. 



^/ 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



LETTERS ON PSALMODY: 



A REVIEW OP THE 



LEADING ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE 



OF THE 



BOOK OF PSALMS. 



BY 



WILLIAM ANNAN, 



AUTHOR OF "DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIAN METHODISM," " GOTTESCHALC'S LETTERS 
TO PROF. YOUNG," ETC. 



"And they, (in heaven) sung a new song, saying with a loud voice, Worthy 
is the Lamb that was slain." * 




PHILADELPHIA: 
WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN, 

tfo. 606 CHESTNUT STREET. 
1859. 



~? y S 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1859, by 
WILLIAM AKNAN, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Coiirt of the United States for the Western 
District of Pennsylvania. 

STEREOTYPED BY W. S. HAVEN, P ITTSBT7B GH , PA. 



COJS'TE^TS. 

LETTER I. 

Page 
Introductory remarks — Origin of this work — Extract from a 
letter of an inquiring friend — Unhappy exaggerations of 
our views and usages — Drs. Watts and Latta misrepresent- 
ed — Dr. Pressly formerly on the Presbyterian platform — 
His views at that time of the " traditions of the elders " — 
Plan of the discussion pursued in this treatise. - - 33 

LETTER II. 

Question at issue: "Is a fair and full version of the whole 
book of Psalms of Divine appointment," — Rouse's versi- 
fication not "the pure word of God" — not a version at 
all, but in many parts "a paraphrase" or mixture of in- 
spired truth with human composition — This proved by 
extended quotations. -------22 

LETTER III. 

Discussion of previous Letter continued — Rouse's versifica- 
tion a patchwork of human and Divine sentiments and 
phraseology — Not "the word of God" in the same sense 
in which the prose translation of our Bible is so — Further 
extracts and extended parallels to prove this. - 31 

LETTER IV. 

The book of Psalms never designed to be the only perpetual 
and unchangeable Psalmody of the Church — Not so re- 
garded by the early church of Scotland, martyrs, reform- 
ers and other holy men — The exclusive doctrine a modern 
discovery — Not practically adopted even by the strictest 
of our opposing brethren — Omission of Psalm 72 : 20 — 
Most of the inspired titles excluded from Rouse — These 
proved to be a part of the inspired text, by Dr. Alexander, 
Home and others — A glance at the Presbyterian doctrine 
of Psalmody. 38 

(Si) 



IV CONTENTS. 

LETTER V. 

Page 

Rouse an explanatory ''paraphrase," not a version or trans- 
lation — Not "as literal as the laws of versification will 
allow" — A glance at the history of Scottish Psalmody 
prior to the publication of Rouse — " Sternhold and Hop- 
kins" a loose paraphrase, and haying many "gospel 
turns," after the manner of Dr. Watts — Acts of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Church of Scotland authorizing 
Rouse call it a "paraphrase" twenty times, but never a 
version — The real question: "Shall we sing * Rouse's 
paraphrase ' or Watts' paraphrase?" — The idea of the Di- 
vine and exclusive authority of "a correct and faithful 
version " purely a modern invention. - - - - 53 

LETTER VI. 

Sources whence the church must derive her songs of praise — 
" All Scripture of use to direct us " in praise as well as "in 
prayer " — Our brethren hold to the "Psalms exclusively ;" 
all else they view as "corruption of Divine worship" — 
Scottish churches almost without exception, use "other 
songs " — Examples of "the Free and Established churches," 
" United Presbyterian church," &c. — The exclusive doc- 
trine not countenanced by the examples of the inspired 
men of the Old and New Testaments, Isaiah, Hezekiah, &c. 68 

LETTER VII. 

Question of "the Divine appointment" of the book of Psalms 
continued — Examination of 2 Chron. 29 : 30 — Contains no 
such Divine warrant — The common arguments from "the 
peculiar matter," "titles," and "original use" of the 
Psalms shown to be fallacious — The title and matter of 
"Solomon's Song" presumptive proof that it should be 
used for purposes of praise - - - - - 75 

LETTER VIII. 

Discussion of previous Letter continued — "A Divine war- 
rant" for the exclusive use of the Book of Psalms, not found 
in Paul's "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs," Coloss. 
3 : 16— Septuagint use of these titles— The fact that the 
Psalms were originally given to be sung by the Jews, does 
not prove them to be intended as an unchangeable, per- 
petual and exclusive system of praise — Various unsound 
arguments exposed. -------87 



CONTENTS. V 

LETTER IX. 

Page 

"A more excellent way " — "Whole word of God of use to 
direct us " in praise — Act of our General Assembly — La- 
bors of Ralph Erskine — Sentiments of " the North British 
Review " in commendation of Dr. Watts — He viewed his 
versification as "a paraphrase;" not always a strict ver- 
sion or translation — Many of his Psalms are as correct 
versions as those of Rouse ; in some parts mere so — 
Specimens of Dr. Watts' manner in " Sternhold and Hop- 
kins " — The Psalms need explanation — Testimony of Pro- 
fessor Patterson. -------- 101 

LETTER X. 

Attempts to create prejudice against our usages by references 
to certain expressions of Dr. Watts — Presbyterians not 
responsible for certain of his reasons in regard to the 
proper method of using the Psalms — Dr. Watts greatly 
misrepresented — His high valuation of the book of 
Psalms — Objections examined : " Watts wrote better than 
David," " Presbyterian Psalmody not the word of God," 
"tends to weaken the claims of inspiration," "those who 
use Rouse certainly sing the truth," "dare not sing 'hu- 
man composition,' " &c. -_-.-- 119 

LETTER XI. 

Hymns, or " the other songs of Scripture " — Example of the 
Scottish churches against the exclusive principle, in the 
proportion of two thousand eight hundred to thirty — Action 
of the early fathers of the Associate Reformed church — 
Dr. M'Master's sentiments in favor of hymns — Present 
views of Drs. Kerr and Pressly — Glance at the results — 
A large part of Dr. Watts' hymns are fair paraphrases of 
portions of the inspired word of God, and no more "hu- 
man composition" than much of "Rouse's paraphrase" — 
Defense of the remainder. ------ 133 

LETTER XII. 

Use of hymns in the early church — Glance at Ephes. 5 : 19, 
and Coloss. 3 : 16 — Authority of Ralph Erskine in favor 
of our views of these passages — Usage of the primitive 
church — Objections considered: "Book of Psalms per- 
fect," "no command to make songs of praise," "setting 
aside parts of God's word," "hymns lead to alteration of 
the inspired records," " encourage error and heresy," 
"Lead to schisms and discord," &c. - 147 

1* 



CONTENTS. 

LETTER XIII. 

God has given ns no system of Psalmody for exclusive use — 
Five further arguments to prove this point — Fruits of the 
exclusive system : Suspension of ministers, elders and 
church members — Argument from analogy: Prayer and 
praise, both of human composition, so mingled in the 
Psalms and in all direct worship of God as to be insepara- 
ble — Strange inconsistencies and jarring opinions about 
the real nature of "inspired Psalmody" — Views of Dr. 
Cooper, the "Preacher," &c— Gross errors in Rouse. - 166 

LETTER XIV. 

Misrepresentations of Dr. Watts exposed — Further proof of 
the use of "other than the Psalms" in the primitive 
church — Admitted by Dr. M'Master; proved by Merle 
D'Aubigne, and "the North British Review" — Letter of 
Pliny — Testimony of Eusebius — Hymns condemned by the 
Council of Laodicea, which also forbid any to sing but the 
choir — Case of the heretic Paul of Samosata — Truths es- 
tablished by that case. - - - - - -186 

APPENDIX. 
Review of "The True Psalmody." 206 



PREFACE. 

Several years ago it was suggested to the author, by one of 
our most energetic and useful ministers, an honored pastor in the 
Presbyterian church, to undertake "the preparation of a small 
popular work on Psalmody.'' This request was enforced by the 
kindest considerations of a personal nature, and the brother was 
pleased to add : " we need a popular treatise * * * to meet the 
public demand on this subject." Many circumstances conspired 
to forbid compliance with this suggestion until a recent period. 
The result is now with great diffidence submitted to the Christian 
public. 

The providential circumstances which have seemed to demand 
some further defense of the cherished usages of the Presbyterian 
church in relation to the public and private singing of the praises 
of God, are fully stated in the progress of this discussion, and espe- 
cially in the Introductory Letter. If our system of Psalmody be 
such as is described in the quotations made from the writings of 
the brethren whom we oppose, then the sooner it is abandoned the 
better ; since it must be, as they are pleased to allege, "a corrup- 
tion of Divine worship " of a very offensive and dangerous sort. 
But if, on the other hand, it is clearly demonstrable that these 
brethren have misapprehended, and therefore, greatly misrepre- 
sented the views and usages of our church ; if, moreover, their 
confident and peculiar claims to the exclusive use of an "inspired 
Psalmody" can be shown to be altogether without founda- 
tion; a superstructure without a basis either in the Holy 
Scriptures, Church History or fact ; then it becomes an obvious 
duty to present the evidence which clearly establishes these 
positions. This has been attempted in the following Letters. 

We disclaim at the outset, the slightest intentional disrespect 
toward the Psalmody in use among these brethren, by the em- 
ployment in this work of the phraseology, "House's versifica- 

(Yii) 



Vlll PREFACE. 

tion," " Rouse's paraphrase," &c. We are told, indeed, "that 
to call the Divine songs in this version, * Rouse's Psalms,' is to 
evidence gross ignorance or something worse."* Yet Neal, the 
distinguished historian of the Puritans, employs the phrase, 
" Rouse's Psalms in nietre."f And what is much more to the 
point, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — 1644- 
1649 — in their formal acts authorizing that versification, employ 
not less than twenty times the phrase " Rouse's paraphrase of 
the Psalms," and similar terms. In such excellent company, we 
cannot be justly chargeable with intentional contempt of the 
Psalmody of these brethren, though we use the expressions re- 
ferred to. We admit that the Scottish General Assembly revised 
and amended Rouse's work ; but probably did not alter it to as 
great an extent as Dr. Watts' "paraphrase" has been changed 
from the original of Dr. W. Yet this does not prevent these 
brethren from using the epithet " Watts' Psalms," though in 
strictness of speech they are not so. 

In the numerous quotations in the following Letters from lead- 
ing works of these brethren, such as "M'Master's Apology," 
" Pressly on Psalmody," " Testimony of the United Presbyterian 
Church," &c. it has been the constant aim of the author to let 
them speak for themselves ; as it was his earnest wish to meet 
their arguments in their own chosen forms. In reference, how- 
ever, to a number of remarkable extracts from " The United 
Presbyterian," Cincinnati, it is only an act of justice to say that 
the editors of that paper, viz. the late Dr. Claybaugh, and Rev. 
James Prestley, now of Pittsburgh, were not personally respon- 
sible. The extracts referred to, are chiefly from communications 
over the signature of " Pastor." How far the editors were pre- 
pared to indorse the views of " Pastor," we can only conjecture ; 
though one or more editions of his articles in pamphlet form 
were printed for wider circulation. 

The zeal of these brethren for their favorite Psalmody does 
not seem to flag. Since the organization of " the United Presby- 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 178. 

| History of the Puritans, vol. 2, p. 42. Francis Rouse was a lay member of the 
Westminster Assembly of Divines, in 1643. 



PREFACE. IX 

terian church," about twelve months ago, they have issued a 
" Testimony " against the supposed errors of other denominations, 
not overlooking this subject. . Over 20,000 copies of "the Testi- 
mony," if we are rightly informed, have already been put in circu- 
lation. In addition, a new work directed more especially against 
"the corruption" of singing hymns, nas within a few months 
been published in Philadelphia, and circulated in the West. A 
venerable Professor, too, has been employing the pulpit at home 
and abroad, in the same cause, warning the people against the 
great inconsistency, and, if his theory be the true one, the immi- 
nent peril of those who mingle in devotional meetings which em- 
ploy other than "the inspired Psalmody." To obviate in some 
measure these varied efforts to perpetuate what the author is con- 
strained to view as mischievous error, and to contribute his mite 
to remove a needless source of division in the Church of Christ, is 
the object of this treatise. 

Having submitted his manuscript to several honored brethren 
in the ministry, the author has great pleasure in presenting to the 
public the appended testimonials : 

Rev. W. Annan : 

Dear Brother : — The undersigned have perused with great 
pleasure, the Letters on Psalmody you were pleased to put in their 
hands, and are happy to express their approbation of them. The prin- 
cipal arguments of those who contend for the exclusive use of " Rouse's 
version of the Psalms " in the worship of God, are fairly stated and 
completely refuted; and whilst you discuss your theme with candor 
and vigor, we are happy to observe it is in an eminently Christian 
temper. 

Although there are already several excellent treatises on this subject, 
your letters fill a gap in this controversy, as you appear to us to meet 
the arguments of those from whom we differ at a number of points 
which others have not touched. 

A clear, brief and courteous discussion of this whole subject, such as 
you have here furnished, is, in our judgment, much needed at this time; 
and the publication of what you have written, we are persuaded, 
through the Divine blessing, would do much to correct erroneous opin- 
ions, and to increase the attachment of our people to a Psalmody which 



X PREFACE. 

embraces the New Testament as well as the Old, and speaks of Calvary 
as well as of Zion. 

"We hope you will consent to give these Letters to the public, and trust 
they may have an extensive circulation, and that their publication may 
result in the edification of Grod's people and the glory of his name. 
Yours, fraternally, 

W. D. HOWARD, 
W. M. PAXTON. 
Allegheny City, March 11th, 1859. 

Rev. W. Annan : 

Bear Brother : — Having with much pleasure perused your 
f Letters on Psalmody," I very cordially concur in the expressions of 
the foregoing letter from the pastors of the First and Second churches 
of this city. 

Respectfully, yours, 

A. 0. PATTERSON. 
Pittsburgh, May 13th, 1859. 

The writer does not deem it necessary to occupy his pages with 
further testimonials. He will only add, that having read some 
of the most important parts of his work to the learned and 
honored Professor of Theology in the Western Seminary, Dr. 
Plumer after "examining the plan of the whole discusssion." 
addressed to the author a very kind note, from which the follow- 
ing is an extract : 

" The result is, that I have no doubt your work is such as is 
called for by the exigency of our times. I therefore cordially 
commend it to the perusal of 'Zion's friends and mine.' I have 
great confidence that the Rev. Dr. Howard, Rev. Wm. M. Pax- 
ton and Rev. Dr. Patterson, have given a fair and just view of 
the whole work." It may be proper to add, that Dr. Plumer 
having at that time only partially recovered from a long and 
painful illness, and his official duties in the Seminary having 
greatly accumulated, was unable, though desirous, to peruse the 
whole discussion. 

In concluding this Preface, we may be permitted to add a few 
"words for the prayerful consideration of the brethren who dissent 
from our views. Agreeing as we do in the great fundamentals of 



PREFACE. XI 

the Calvinistic faith and of Christian morals, let us inquire 
seriously and earnestly, whether we are not also substantially 
one in the ordinance of praise. In theory we differ, but in prac- 
tice the disagreement ceases to be a matter of principle. Just 
as every pious Arminian when on his knees, becomes a Calvinist ; 
so do these brethren habitually forsake the exclusive theory and 
practice in part on the principle which we adopt. So at least it 
seems to us. We appeal to the ensuing argument to prove that 
they worship God to a large extent, in the use of "human com- 
position." 

As to the injurious and even fatal consequences flowing from 
these needless divisions, especially in the sparse settlements of 
our country, they are only too obvious and deplorable. How often 
does it occur, that two church edifices must be built in a neigh- 
borhood where not one can be half filled with worshipers — two 
ministers must labor where not one can be half supported, &c. 
Hence for more than half the year silent Sabbaths — while 
heresy and delusion of every shade are spreading their soul- 
destroying influences into every nook and corner of the land. 
Thus in numerous instances are the professed friends of the Lord 
Jesus found working into the hands of the great adversary of 
souls. 

With these remarks we commend the work to the blessing of 
" the Father of lights and of wisdom, from whom cometh down 
every good and perfect gift," with the earnest prayer that it may 
be made the humble instrument of promoting the union of Chris- 
tians and the salvation of souls. 

Pittsburgh, May, 1859. 



LETTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS — ORIGIN OF THE WORK — EXTRACT FROM A 
LETTER FROM AN INQUIRING FRIEND — UNHAPPY EXAGGERATION 

OF OUR VIEWS OUR USAGES MISREPRESENTED NOTICE OF DRS. 

WATTS AND LATTA DR. PRESSLY FORMERLY ON THE PRESBYTERIAN 

PLATFORM HIS VIEWS OF " TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS" PLAN 

OF THE DISCUSSION PURSUED IN THIS TREATISE. 

My Dear Sir: — I received in due season your very 
acceptable communication, and return you my grateful 
acknowledgments for the many kind expressions it con- 
tains. It is true, as you intimate, that under the force 
of circumstances beyond my control, my attention has 
been at different times directed to the subject which has 
occasioned your letter. Nor do I consider myself at 
liberty to disregard suggestions which have had an origin 
such as that to which you refer. That the Christian 
public, before which these Letters will probably appear, 
may understand these allusions, I take the liberty of 
making some extracts from your letter, as follows : 

" During a recent visit among distant relatives, there 
was placed in my hands, and earnestly recommended to 
my perusal, a copy of a work entitled 'An Apology for 
the Book of Psalms/ In turning over its pages I con- 
fess the impressions made upon my mind were anything 
but pleasant, and I must add, by no means favorable to 
the Presbyterian church. 

" I was born of parents, who, as you are aware, were 
of the old Scottish stock, and my excellent father was 
for many years a minister of the Associate Reformed 
church. I had been accustomed from early youth, to 
what is called 'the old Psalmody/ both in public and 
private worship, and have many of its stanzas still famil- 
iar to my memory. But when, as I grew up, I experienced 
2 (xiii) 



14 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

those deep religious impressions, which, as I trust, were 
the evidence of the * effectual call' of God's Spirit, 
and when I united with a church under the care of the 
General Assembly, it was certainly without the remotest 
suspicion that I. thereby renounced, even by implication, 
any of ' the great and precious' principles of Divine truth, 
in which I had been so carefully trained by my honored 
parents. 

" Judge then of my painful surprise, when there was 
handed to me a work whose very title indicates that a most 
precious portion of God's sacred word had been seriously 
assailed and its Divine inspiration bitterly impugned by the 
very branch of the church with which I had cast in my lot. 
That for this reason, the author referred to had felt it to 
be incumbent upon him to enter the controversial arena 
in defense of the book of Psalms — very much as some 
of the early fathers wrote 'apologies' for Christianity, 
which were designed to obviate and rebuke the malignant 
assaults of Jews and Pagans against the rising power 
and influence of the religion of Christ ! 

" On looking through the volume, I found the General 
Assembly of our church charged with ' the entire rejection 
of the inspired book of Psalms from the church's Psal- 
mody, and the substitution of others of human device in 
their place ' — and several authors belonging to the Pres- 
byterian body are professedly quoted as employing ( ar- 
guments most popular and frequently used ' * * ' repre- 
senting those Divine compositions (the Psalms of David) 
as Ohristless/ and of course, 'almost, if not altogether 
contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, ' pp. 51, 67, 69. 
Again, the author charges l that most numerous and in- 
fluential body of professors (the Presbyterian church) 
with abandoning the songs of inspiration and practically 
declaring them unfit for Christian lips,' p. 85. And he 
solemnly testifies ' against those who have entered into 
these views.' 

" Such, Rev. Sir, are a few specimens of the spirit and 
substance of the book — imposing, as the author inti- 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 

mates, a necessity upon him to step forward to shield a 
most precious part of revealed truth from the < bitter 
libels ' and the l unhallowed suggestions uttered against 
it.' And in endeavoring to trace these evils to their 
source, he without hesitation ascribes them ' to the prin- 
ciples of Infidelity which had extended to every depart- 
ment both of Church and State/* 

" Having only recently commenced my preparatory 
studies for the ministry, and never been placed in cir- 
cumstances where it became necessary to examine with 
much care the Psalmody question, you, Rev. Sir, can 
readily conceive with what impressions I perused such 
paragraphs as the foregoing. Could it be possible there 
was the slightest foundation for allegations such as these ? 
Certainly from some considerable acquaintance with the 
ministry and membership of the Presbyterian church, I 
had never conceived the smallest suspicion of such a 
state of feeling toward the productions of 'the sweet 
Psalmist of Israel f but on the contrary had always met 
with expressions of the most profound veneration and 
esteem for that delightful manual of devotion, especially 
as a component part of the 'holy oracles/ And in 
regard to my own experience, from the earliest dawn of 
religion in my soul, I had been in the habit of resorting 
to that precious book, the Psalms, as a most abundant 
fountain of light, consolation and refreshment for all 
classes of pilgrims to the heavenly land. Moreover, 
this I knew to be a common experience in the Presby- 
terian church. Still, as these grave charges were made 
by men venerable for years and respected for their talents, 
the only alternative left me was to express my conviction 
of an utter mistake as to matter of fact, or to remain en- 
tirely silent in regard to statements which I was not pre- 
pared to refute." 

These paragraphs sufficiently define the circumstances 
which produced the letter of my correspondent. His 
experience is by no means singular. In the same letter 
* The latest edition was published in 1852. 



16 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

lie mentions the case of a Presbyterian lady, who had 
never made herself acquainted with the merits of the 
Psalmody question — who, having placed in her hands a 
copy of the same work ("Apology, &c") was so im- 
pressed with its confident assertions, that she declared 
to her pastor her full determination never again to em- 
ploy the Psalmody of the Presbyterian church.* 

In like manner those whose circumstances have brought 
them in contact for any considerable length of time with 
the books, periodicals, &c. of these brethren, must have 
often been grieved and indignant at the tone of rash, 
unbrotherly assertion which frequently appears in con- 
nection with this subject. Charges of " Infidel flouts" — 
" impious rejection of the Psalms which God has given" 
— " infamous conduct in setting aside the God-made 
hymn book and adopting man-made hymn books" — 
" disregard of Divine authority, want of reverence for 
the Scriptures, and low views in relation to their inspira- 
tion" — u speaking reproachfully of the book of Psalms" 
— " daring presumption" — " daring profanity" — " sen- 
timents derogatory to the Spirit of inspiration" — " crime 
verging on the sin against the Holy Ghost." These are 
copied from the most respectable sources, from the wri- 
tings of men of years and standing in their own denomi- 
nations ; and several of them from the official " Testi- 
mony" recently issued by the Associate and Associate Re- 
formed, now known as " the United Presbyterian body!" 

In regard to the practical working of our Psalmody, 
the following extraordinary statement was published in 
two of their leading magazines,f issued in Philadelphia, 
viz : 

" The Puritan churches in Old and New England, and 
also the two General Assemblies (Old and New School) 
in the States, are beacons too alarming to be disregarded. 
In these churches they have renounced the Bible Psalms, 

* She soon after joined the Seceders. 

f Christian Instructor and Evangelical Repository, for June, 1854; 
edited by Drs. Dales and Cooper. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 

and adopted Watts' and other collections. The expe^ 
rience of these churches is, that when human hymns were 
introduced they were not generally sung by the congre- 
gation : that was left with the leader and a few others. 
Then a choir was needed to keep up the volume of sound 
considered respectable. This, ere long, got stale, and 
became uninteresting. They then introduced organs and 
all sorts of ' dead instruments giving sound ;' this more 
and more killed congregational singing. Then they mul- 
tiplied hymn books without end : (a gentleman in New 
York lately carried four hymn books to church, and only 
one out of the four hymns sung was in the four books.) 
The result is, that nobody out of the choir now sings, and 
the churches are literally without praise — the most inter- 
esting and celestial exercise of the church on earth, per- 
haps in heaven. " 

It is not necessary to extend these quotations. Suffi- 
cient has been given to indicate the tone and spirit with 
which this controversy is conducted by the more sober 
and mature minds among these brethren. Neither do 
we propose at present to say a word to expose these sin- 
gular allegations. Most of them will come in review as 
we proceed in the discussion. Charity demands that we 
presume their authors thought u they ivere speaking the * 
truth in love t" Even good men, as all experience testifies, 
when they become heated by controversy, may be deceived, 
and unintentionally deceive others. David himself admits 
that he spoke " in haste," when he uttered a certain 
sweeping condemnation. 

To revert for a moment to the particular icork referred 
to by our correspondent — the extracts professedly given 
from the treatises of the late Dr. James Latta and 
two or three others, we have not the means of testing by 
a reference to the books themselves. They are out of 
print. Nor have we ever seen Dr. Latta's work, except 
a single copy some years since, in the private library of 
Rev. Dr. M'Gill, who had been a Seceder clergyman ! 
That Dr. L. never designed to utter most of the senti- 
2* 



18 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

ments attributed to him, is plain to my mind from several 
considerations : they are in direct contradiction to the 
whole tenor of his honored and useful life. So that it is 
much easier to believe that the author of the " Apology" 
in the heat of contest has mistaken his meaning, than to 
conceive that Dr. L. ever meant to express some of the 
sentiments ascribed to him ; and the same thing is true of 
the others. If, however, any opinions on Psalmody have 
been uttered by any member or minister of the Presby- 
terian body, such as some of those imputed to Dr. L. 
and others, let them be condemned ! Every sound Pres- 
byterian will add his amen to the sentence. Let the 
volumes be produced and the quotations verified — then we 
will join these brethren in their earnest repudiation of 
them. 

As to the professed quotations from Dr. Watts, his 
case will receive, as it deserves, a more particular notice. 
He was the honored instrument, in the hand of Provi- 
dence, in arranging and versifying the Psalms and 
Hymns as they are generally used in our churches ; and 
he has met with no ordinary share of abuse and misrep- 
resentation. Suffice it to say for the present, that as our 
Psalmody has been repeatedly revised with great care, 
by large and respectable committees of the General As- 
sembly, the system now bears the official sanction of that 
body. The views of Psalmody uttered by Dr. W. in his 
" Essay" and " Prefaces," have never been indorsed by 
our Assembly. They may be true or false — they are not 
ours. So also with the reasons Dr. W. assigns for cer- 
tain changes introduced into parts of the Psalms. The 
General Assembly have sanctioned and adopted many of 
those alterations, with their own amendments — but not 
one of the published reasons of Dr. Watts.* We wish 
this to be particularly noted. Admitting for argument, 
that to a certain extent Dr. W. has expressed himself 
unhappily, injudiciously and unwisely, in regard to parts 
of the Psalms — our church is no more responsible for 
* Eor a defense of Dr. W. see Letter XIV. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19 

those forms of utterance which she has never sanctioned, 
than she is responsible for the blunders of Rouse, in 
making David say the true Christian in his experience of 
this life, " hath perfect blessedness" — which, of course, 
is the fruit only of perfect holiness, and leads directly to 
the error of " sinless perfection." So Rouse may have 
had his reasons for exhibiting the Lord Jesus Christ inPs. 
69 : 4, as saying of the satisfaction he made to the Divine 
law — " to render forced was I '" which, of course, 
utterly subverts the doctrine of Atonement, by representing 
the blessed Saviour as a forced victim to Divine justice ! 
Still, we have too much charity for these brethren, to 
imagine that they hold these gross errors, or that they 
have ever sanctioned Rouse's reasons for so misrepresent- 
ing the inspired Psalmist. Let them exercise the same 
blessed charity toward their brethren of other denomina- 
tions. We use the poetical labors of Dr. Watts where 
we approve of them, just as we use those of any other 
man — but so far and no farther are we responsible for 
his sentiments. The bitter denunciations he has met 
with are no concern of ours, except to see that there is 
no misrepresentation and slandering of the venerable dead. 
But of this more hereafter. 

In view of the offensive language we have quoted in 
this Letter, it must sadden every Christian heart to reflect 
that the followers and friends of a common Saviour 
should allow themselves to speak thus of one another. 
There are better moments, when even the authors of such 
harsh expressions, under the sacred impulse, we trust, 
of a common faith and a common salvation, feel free to 
speak of us as " a branch of the Calvinistic Presbyterian 
church, who are doing much to. build up the Lord's cause, 
* * * and in whose prosperity we (they) rejoice."* 
This is kind and brotherly, but in strange contrast with 
other forms of expression from the same general source. 

It is not the prerogative of man to judge the motives 
or "try the heart" — but it should not surprise these 
* United Presbyterian, of Cincinnati, August 9, 1849. 



20 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

brethren if we find ourselves unable to appreciate their 
extraordinary zeal on such a topic as Psalmody. In this 
we only follow the safe precedent of the Rev. Dr. Press- 
ly, of Allegheny City, who many years ago, having be- 
come the pastor of a church in Abbeville, S. C, wrote to 
Dr. J. M. Mason, his former preceptor, as follows : 

"I have some trouble occasionally with extremely 
good people, who have great attachment to what they 
term the 'good old way/ but which might as fitly be 
called c tradition of the elders.' There are three bones 
of contention which have already been often picked, but 
yet are not likely to be laid aside till some of our fathers 
are removed to the land of silence, viz. Is it lawful to 
omit the observance of a fast preparatory to the Lord's 
Supper ? Is it scriptural to extend our Christian fellow- 
ship beyond the limits of our own church ? Is it right 
to use any other than a literal version of David's Psalms 
in the public praise of God ? 

" When I inform you that it has been customary, on 
sacramental occasions, to hear those anathematized who 
would dare to believe the affirmative on either of these 
points, you will be prepared to understand somewhat of 
the spirit which we have to meet." 

Again, the same writer, after speaking of tl the unity 
of the church as taught in the Epistle to the Ephesians," 
adds — " This admitted, the doctrine of Catholic commu- 
nion seemed to be an irresistible consequence; and there- 
fore I thought it my duty to utter it," i. e. "the doctrine 
of Catholic 'communion."* It need occasion no astonish- 
ment in the breasts of these brethren, if the arguments 
which, at the date of this letter, convinced even a Pressly 
of the truth of our principles, should even to this day be 
satisfactory to the mind of the Presbyterian body ! 

It is stated by Dr. M' Master, in his " Apology for the 
Book of Psalms/ 'f that "in the neighborhood of those 

* Life of Dr. J. M. Mason, p. 487. 

f This is the work alluded to by our correspondent, near the com- 
mencement of the Letter. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21 

churches where the compositions of Dr. Watts produced 
dissatisfaction, the Associate Reformed ministers were 
not scrupulous in keeping alive the discontents that ex- 
isted. It is no impeachment of their motives/' he 
adds, " when it is stated as a fact, that tliey profited by 
these discontents. Separation from former connections 
was encouraged ; and by such as separated, their churches, 
in various parts of the continent, ivere enlarged, and some 
almost wholly formed" Again, the same writer charges 
the Associate Reformed with " employing this as an in- 
strument of rending churches and of breaking up former 
connections" p. 87. If these things be true, we indulge 
the hope, that at least since the union with the Asso- 
ciate church better counsels will prevail; and that as 
branches of the great Presbyterian family, and especial- 
ly as children of a common Parent, the redeemed of a 
common Ransom, we shall henceforth cooperate, as far 
as we can, in the glorious cause of a common Salvation. 
A spirit such as this will do much to soften asperities, 
and especially to frown down that disposition, too preva- 
lent among these brethren, to exaggerate, caricature and 
render odious some of the usages of the Presbyterian 
church. With the sincere desire to contribute something 
to the attainment of these much wished for results, the 
writer has prepared the following Letters. And he has 
been the more encouraged to this from the fact, that in 
their " Testimony" these brethren earnestly " beseech us 
seriously to consider the grounds of their controversy with 
us — and to give them our prayerful consideration"* 
The plan proposed in the following discussion is this : 

I. To examine the question, whether our brethren em- 
ploy in praise, " the songs of inspiration," " an 
inspired Psalmody" — or rather, whether their Psal- 
mody be not, to a great extent, an explanatory para- 
phrase. Letters II. — V. 

II. The question of a Divine Warrant for the exclu- 
sive use of the "book of Psalms," as the only and 

* See their Testimony, pp. 7, 46. 



22 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

perpetual Psalmody of the church, under both Jewish 
and Christian dispensations, and to the end of time. 
Letters VI.— VIII. 

III. "The more excellent way." Statement and de- 
fense of the principles and practice of the Presbyte- 
rian church in regard to the subject of Psalmody. 
Letters IX.— XIII. 

IV. Defense of Dr. Watts, &c. Letter XIV. 



LETTER II. 

QUESTION AT ISSUE! "iS A FAIR AND FULL VERSION" OF DIVINE AP- 
POINTMENT ? — ROUSE'S VERSIFICATION NOT " THE WORD OF GOD '*' — 
NOT A "VERSION" AT ALL, BUT IN MANY PARTS A "PARAPHRASE," OR 
MIXTURE OF INSPIRED TRUTH WITH "HUMAN COMPOSITION" — PROVED 
BY EXTENDED QUOTATIONS. 

My Dear Sir: — In all discussions of a moral and 
religious character, it is of the last importance to com- 
mence with a well defined statement of the main point in 
dispute. In arriving at correct views of this subject, 
we will first present " the question " as stated by our 
brethren, and then point out its inaccuracies and incon- 
sistencies. In some future Letters it will come in course 
to exhibit the theory held by our church, and to defend 
it against their assaults. 

"The question at issue," we are told, "is, shall we 
have any fair and full version of this Divine book (of 
Psalms) as the matter of praise" — or "shall we reject 
that (Psalm book) which God has given, and prefer our 
own effusions." * " You (Presbyterians) think this heav- 
enly hymn book * * * is obsolete now, and that 
almost any body can write a better Psalter than it is." 

* Apology, p. 92. On p. 121, Rouse is called "a literal and faithful 
version." 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 23 

" Hence you throw it all away except tioo short hymns, 
and substitute in its place all kinds of poetry written by 
all kinds of men." * " The question/' we are further 
told, "has been pressed upon us, involving an impious 
rejection of the Psalms which God has given to his* church 
as unfit to be sung, and the substitution of hymns of 
man's composure, &c." f 

It would be easy to quote much more of the same sort 
from the accredited writings of these brethren. But it 
seems scarcely credible that they really consider the fore- 
going a fair, unexceptionable statement of the Psalmody 
question. Certainly they must have known that to the 
mind of every intelligent Presbyterian it would present 
only an offensive caricature — and that all their arguments 
to overthrow such positions as those imputed to us, would 
be viewed by us as "contending with a man of straw/' and 
demolishing a logical figment! and more than this — 
their statements do not give a correct representation of 
the position practically held by their authors themselves, 
as we proceed to demonstrate by incontrovertible facts. 

The main proposition of the earliest and perhaps the 
ablest work on the subject, is stated as follows : 

"a correct and faithful version of the whole 
book of Psalms should be employed in the Psal- 
mody OF THE CHURCH." J 

This position is vindicated " on the ground of Divine 
appointment" — and heavy judgments are more than hint- 
ed as the inevitable doom of those who " by their com- 
positions have excluded the songs of inspiration from 
the Psalmody of the church" — and who have preferred 
"some one prepared by men, to the book of hymns 
which God has provided." || And much zeal is at times 
enkindled against this " profane exclusion of God's Psalm 
book !" 

* United Presbyterian, of Cincinnati. 

t Rev. Dr. Kerr, in Preacher. 

j Apology, p. 98. The capital letters are not ours. 

|| Preacher, June 4th, 1844. 



24 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

These and many similar expressions of indignation 
are uttered by those who employ in public and private 
praise, what is commonly known as " Rouse's version of 
the Psalms." Of course these brethren must regard 
that " version" as the veritable Psalms of the Holy 
Scriptures. Hence we are told that " like the prose ver- 
sion of the Bible, it is remarkably literal — it presents 
the Psalms in their native simplicity , beauties and force." 
" We do not say it is perfect; it is susceptible of im- 
provement as the (prose) version of the Bible is" — "it is 
a literal and true version" * 

To the same effect another leading author writes as 
follows : he is speaking of those who from the very 
frequent use of the term "paraphrase" in the acts of 
the Scottish General Assembly authorizing "Rouse's 
version/' "have endeavored to produee the impression 
that it (the "version") was not adopted by those who 
regarded it as a literal or correct translation of the 
original." Dr. P. adds — "This is disingenuous." Again, 
Dr. P. tells us, "it (the "version") was adopted upon 
the principle that it is a faithful translation of the origi- 
nal text." Again, the same writer quotes with strong 
approval the Rev. Wm. Romaine, affirming that " Dr. 
Watts had taken precedence of the Holy Ghost and thrust 
him entirely out the church." 

Again says Dr. Pressly : — " This (Rouse's) version is 
not an explanation, but a translation of the Psalms. 
Like the prose translation of the whole Bible, it is the 
work of man, and in some respects might be amended. 
The same will be universally admitted in relation to the 
prose translation of the Bible. Both these translations 
are substantially correct and faithful ; and for the same 
reason they are both to be regarded as THE word of 
God." 

In these extracts from two of the leading authors on 
that side of the controversy, we have at a glance the 
precise position maintained by the denominations which 

* Apology, p. 121, &c. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 25 

they represent; they sing " the inspired Psalm book" 
— " the word of God;" we sing only " human composi- 
tions " — " the effusions of fallible men." Theirs is 
"God's Psalter" — "a correct and faithful translation;" 
ours is "a human Psalm book." Their principle is 
" a literal or correct translation." Ours is " human 
composition " in preference to that of the Holy Spirit. 

Now we do not ask the reader to receive our assertions 
as proof — we appeal to the record, and undertake to show 
by most incontrovertible evidence, that these charges and 
allegations are without foundation. The Psalmist says, 
that on one occasion he spoke " in haste " — and so with 
these brethren in this instance. We accept the test 
which they offer, viz. "the prose translation of the 
Bible," and we undertake to prove that measured by this 
rule, "Rouse's version" is not "a correct and faithful 
version or translation," and is not "for the same reason 
the word of God." * 

And we feel the greater willingness to measure their 
Psalmody by this standard, because in the judgment of 
the Christian world wherever the English Bible is read, 
its fidelity, perspicuity and excellence have deservedly 
secured for our prose version a high and distinguished 
place. " It is the best translation in the world." " It 
may justly contend with any now extant in Europe." 
"It is the best standard of our language." "It has 
enriched and adorned our language." " Of all ver- 
sions, it must in general be accounted the most excel- 
lent." " The translators have seized the very spirit and 
soul of the original, and expressed this almost every 
where with pathos and energy." "They have been as 
literal as they could to avoid obscurity." Such are a few 
of the expressed opinions of scholars of the highest 
eminence, and of various shades of theological belief. 
And tried by this standard, the system of praise called 
" Rouse's version" has no just claims to be " a true and 
literal translation," "or inspired Psalmody" — but to a 
• Preacher, Dec. 13, 1844; Aug. 9, 1844. 
3 



26 



LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 



great extent is a mere patchwork paraphrase, u a human 
explanation of the word of God ! ;; Now for the proof. 
We begin with Psalm 102 : 



PROSE VERSION. 

I am like a pelican in the 
wilderness. 



Like pelican in wilderness 
Forsaken I have been. 



I am like an 
desert 



owl of the 



Because of thine indigna 
tion and thy wrath. 



not despise their 



I like an owl in desert am, 
That nightly there doth moan. 

Thy wrath and indignation 
Did cause this grief and pain. 

Their prayer will he not despise, 
By him it shall be heard. 

When as the people gather shall 
In troops with one accord. 

The madmen are against me sworn, 
The men against me that rose. 

But thou, Lord, ?>mlt still endure, 
From change omd all mutation free. 

These illustrations occur in the first twelve verses of 
the Psalm ; and it will be seen that a full half is " mere 
human composition!" And is this "a literal and faith- 
ful version V y Does this " deserve to be regarded as the 
word of God as really as the prose translation Y } Is not 
this " human explanation V 

We next refer to the 105th Psalm : 



And 
prayer. 

When the people are gath- 
ered together. 

They that are mad against 
me, are sworn against me. 

But thou, Lord, shalt en- 
dure for ever. 



PROSE VERSION. 

Seek the Lord and his 
strength, seek his face ever- 
more. 

When they went from one na- 
tion to another, from one king- 
dom to another. 

He sent a man before them. 



The Lord almighty, and his strength, 
With steadfast hearts seek ye: 
His blessed and his gracious face 
Seek ye continually. 

While yet they went from land to land, 
Without a sure abode ; 
And while, thro' sundry kingdoms,*A^y 
Did wander far abroad. 



But yet he sent a man before, 
By whom they should be fed. 

Until the time that his word came 
To give him liberty. 

It will be observed that more than half of these sis 



Until the time that his word 
came. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 27 

couplets is "mere explanation " and paraphrase. Yet it 
is all declared to be " not an explanation, but a transla- 
tion f yea, a " literal and faithful translation I" Thus 
" the productions of men are exalted to a level with the 
word of God !" If this is what they mean by " the songs 
composed in heaven/' which they profess to sing y they re- 
duce the inspired word of God very near to a level with 
their prayers and sermons, "mere human effusions." It 
would be easy to fill pages with similar illustrations — but 
lest we should weary the reader, we adduce some further 
examples under three distinct heads, as follows : 

I. In numerous examples, "the human composition" 
is a mere repetition of the inspired sentiment, with some 
expansion of the thought : 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

How amiable are thy taber- How lovely is thy dwelling place 
nacles, Lord of hosts. Lord of hosts, to me ! 

The tabernacles of thy grace. 
Mow pleasant, Lord, they be. 

Thy mercy held me up. Thy mercy held me up, Lord — 

Thy goodness did me stay. 

Round about their habita- All round about the tabernacles, 
tions. And tents where they did dwell. 

The voice of thy thunder was Thy thunder's voice along the heaven 
in the heaven. A mighty noise did make. 

Thou leddest thy people like Thy people thou didst safely lead, 
a flock by the hand of Moses Like to a flock of sheep, 
and Aaron. By Moses* hand and Aaron's thou 

Didst them conduct and keep. 

These are bright specimens of the " inspired Psalmo- 
dy " of these brethren ! " In the Psalms," says one of these 
authors, " God has presented his own truth in tho way 
which to his infinite wisdom seemed best." But here 
there is an evident and great departure from "the way of 
infinite wisdom !" Yet we are required to receive all 
these " vain repetitions " and explanations as " a literal 
and correct translation of the original."* It is all "the 
word of God !" With about the same propriety might 
* Preacher, December 13, 1844. 



28 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

they call their pulpit " explanations " of the Psalms u the 
word of God I" 

II. Many scores of these " human explanations w are 
merely Rouse's additional thoughts employed to fill up the 
verse and make metre. Thus : 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

Be thankful unto Him and Praise,laud and bless his name always; 
bless his name. For it is seemly so to do. 

Which sing among the Which do among the branches sing 
branches. With delectation. 

God hath spoken in his holi- God in his holiness hath said, 
ness. Herein I will take pleasure. 

My soul breaketh for the My soul within me breaks, and doth 
longing that it hath. Much fainting still endure. 

I delayed not. I did not stay, nor linger long, 

As those that slothful are. 

I thought on my ways. I thought upon my former ways 

And did my life well try. 

For I am become like a bot- For like a bottle I'm become, 
tie in the smoke. That in the smoke is set. 

I'm black and parched with grief. 

Their heart is as fat as Their hearts, throng h worldly ease 
grease. wealth, 

As fat as grease they be. 

In the following examples Rouse's explanations are in 
italics, to distinguish them from the inspired word of 
God 

Thy holy words forgotten have, 
And do thy laics despise. 

} Rose up in wrath 

To make of us their prey. 

And as fierce floods, 

Before them all things drown. 

Unto their teeth 
And bloody cruelty. 

To him that Egypt smote, 
Who did his message scorn, 
And in his anger hot 
Did kill all their first born. 

Even through the desert dry 
And in that place them fed. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 29 

To thee my help alone 
For thou well understands 
All my complaint and moan, 

Ev'n there they were afraid, and stood 

With trembling, all dismay' d, 
Whereas there was no cause at all 

Why they should be afraid. 

To learn thy wisdom and thy truth, 
That we may live thereby. 

But overwhelmed and lost 
Was proud king Pharaoh, 
With all his mighty host, 
And chariots also. 

No comment is necessary to point out to every intelli- 
gent reader the absurdity of calling all this " the word 
of God " — " songs of inspiration ; >J " songs composed in 
heaven •" " a correct, faithful and literal translation I" 
"V\ T e are almost tempted to employ the language of the 
prophet, and say of these brethren, " who is blind as my 
servant !" This " the word of God for the same reason 
that the prose in our Bibles is so !" 

III. A third class of these " human improvements" 
includes a full half of Rouse's inventions, as follows : 

Thou art the God that wonders dost 
By thy right hand most strong. 

Their ensigns they set up for signs 
Of triumph thee before. 

A man was famous and was had 
In estimation. 

They set their mouths against the heavens 
In their blasphemous talk. 

And they a passage had, 

Ev'n marching through the flood on foot. 

Surely when floods of waters great 
Do swell up to the brim, 
They shall not overwhelm his soul, 
Nor once come nigh to him. 

The Lord will light my candle so 
That it shall shine full bright. 

For in their heart they tempted God, 
And speaking with mistnist. 
3* 



30 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

The nations of Canaan 
By his Almighty hand. 

And there were none to bury them 
When they were slain and dead. 

So that all passengers do pluck 
And make of her a prey. 

They in their hands shall bear thee up, 
Still waiting thee upon. 

The italics will show at a glance where the inspired 
word ends, and Rouse begins his composition. We have 
no room for further illustrations of this sort. But how 
many of these complete lines of Rouse's composition does 
any one suppose are found in this " correct and faithful 
version ?" We have not examined the whole, but so far 
as we have compared the " version " with " the prose in our 
Bibles/ ' we have marked one hundred and seventy-four 
entire lines. In other words, there is sufficient of this sort 
of interpolation, this "human" patchwork upon "the in- 
spired word of God," to make seven whole Psalms of the size 
of Psalm 1, and more than twenty-four of the size of Psalm 
117. These are all " the suggestions of men " — they are 
" human inventions," with which " the word of God " 
has been interwoven, explained, the versification length- 
ened out, &c. Yet all this is recommended as a " literal 
or correct translation of the original text " — "a correct 
and faithful version," &c. 

And now in closing this letter, we make our appeal to 
every intelligent mind. Are these "the Holy Spirit's 
Psalms ?" Is it not an insult to the Spirit of inspiration 
to attribute to Him all these specimens of " human effu- 
sion." What sort of idea of "inspiration" must they 
have, who thus degrade it to the level of " human inven- 
tions." The theory of "a literal and faithful version 
as of Divine appointment," proves to be a mere fig- 
ment. Yet strange to say, these brethren proclaim, " we 
dare not put a human explanation in the place of the 
word of God." " Why does any one ask us to take a hu- 
man explanation of an inspired Psalm ? * * * To 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 31 

such a request we could not accede without offering crim- 
inal disrespect to the word of God !" * It may perhaps 
appear harsh to pronounce such professions as these mere 
oratorical flourishes employed for effect. But facts are 
stubborn things. We shall resume the subject in our 
next letter. 



LETTER III. 



DISCUSSION CONTINUED — ROUSE A PATCHWORK OF HUMAN AND DIYINE 
SENTIMENTS AND PHRASEOLOGY — NOT THE WORD OF GOD IN THE 
SAME SENSE IN WHICH OUR PROSE TRANSLATION IS SO — FURTHER 
EXTRACTS AND PARALLELS TO PROVE THIS. 

My Dear Sir: — We are employed in testing "the 
inspired Psalmody" of our brethren, by the standard 
proposed by themselves, viz. the admirably correct and 
faithful translation found in our Bibles. Do they em- 
ploy in praise " an inspired Psalmody exclusively ?" 
This is their profession — but we appeal to the record. 
Our examples have thus far been confined to complete lines 
of interpolation, the inventions of Rouse. Let us next 
glance at some lesser improvements upon the inspired text. 

Of these smaller additions we have marked more than 
three hundred, varying from a couple of words to almost 
a full line of the verse. These are all mere human patch- 
work mingled with the inspired text, and they make 
i( Rouse's version" very unlike " the prose translation 
of the Bible," and for that reason, it is not " the word 
of God" in the same sense. We confine our extracts to 
select specimens, the "human composition" being in 
italics : 

Yea thou thine hand dost open wide 
And every thing dost satisfy 
That lives, and doth on earth abide, 
Of thy great liberality. 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 115. 



32 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

And divers hinds of filthy frogs 
He sent them to destroy. 

Behold the sparrow findeth out 
A house wherein to rest : 
The swallow also for herself 
Hath purchased a nest. 

Also the rain that falleth down 
The pools with water fills. 

Who by assured confidence 
On thee alone doth rest. 

And in old age ichen others fade, 
They fruit still forth shall bring. 

They shall be fat and full of sap, 
And aye be flourishing. 

Although they curse with spite, yet Lord 
Bless thou with loving voice. 

Wherefore their days in vanity 

He did consume and waste ; 

And by his wrath, their wretched years 

Away in trouble past. 

Lord, the God of Israel, 
Let none, icho search do make 
And seek thee, be at any time 
Confounded for my sake. 

In the "inspired Psalmody" of these brethren, we have 
noted three hundred and thirty-two examples of this sort. 
Varying from two words to six or seven, we will suppose 
the average to be three, which will give one hundred and 
sixty-six full lines of poetry, the whole of which is " hu- 
man composition," superadded and interwoven with " the 
prose translation of the Bible." 

Thus taken collectively, we have here matter amounting 
to seven more full songs of praise of the size of Psalm 1, 
and more than twenty -four of the size of Psalm 117, all 
of which is of human origin and invention ; yet are we seri- 
ously assured by these brethren, that " like the version 
of the Bible, this of the Psalms is very literal." And 
Dr. P. adds, " that like the prose version of the Bible, 
it should be considered as a literal or correct translation 
of the original text." 

In addition to all this, the statements of these authors is 



WHAT SONGS ABE INSPIRED. 33 

refuted in nearly every page of their Psalmody. Besides 
matter sufficient to make more than fourteen songs of praise 
of the size of Psalm 1, and twenty-four like Psalm 117, 
there is a large number of epithets and expletives of vari- 
ous sorts and sizes, thrown in to fill out the verse, of which 
we have counted one hundred and eighty-six which be- 
long not to " the prose translation of the Bible." In 
proof of these allegations we refer first to the very doubt- 
ful use which is often made in Rouse's Psalmody of the 
peculiar names and titles of the Divine Being as mere ver- 
bal expletives, mere poetical expedients to round a stanza, 
or fill up a defective line, where those awful names are 
entirely wanting in the original. We present the follow- 
ing example, the words supplied being in italics : 

The spearmen's host, the multitude 

Of bulls, which fiercely look. 

Those calves which people have forth sent, 

Lord our God, rebuke, 

Till every one submit himself 

And silver pieces bring. 

The people that delight in war 

Disperse, God and King. 

The verse (Ps. 68 : 30) of which this is assumed to be 
" a literal and faithful version," does not once name the 
great Being who is the object of all religious adoration; 
and it really presents a serious inquiry how far this inter- 
polation of the great and glorious name which is above 
every name, for such a purpose, is a religious and devout 
use of it — how far it is morally right to thrust these 
awful titles into the verse to make rhyme, or help out a 
defective stanza, where Divine Wisdom has seen fit to with- 
hold them; and this objection lies with peculiar force 
when this is viewed as an irreverent liberty taken by 
H adding to the word of God," the very thoughts and 
matter in which He has "taught us how to praise" thus 
much and no more. Yet this use of the peculiar names 
and titles of the Deity is very frequent, not less than 
eighteen or twenty such examples being found in the 
119th Psalm as versified by Bouse ; and indeed they are 



34 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

to be thus met with in very many of the Psalms, perhaps 
in most of them. 

The following examples are from Psalm 119 : 

An end of all perfection 
Here have I seen, God. 
But as for thy commandment, 
It is exceeding broad. 

I am with sore affliction 
Even overwhelmed, Lord, 
In mercy raise and quicken me 
According to thy word. 

In the next place, a similar use is made of many of the 
revealed perfections of the great and terrible God, for 
the mere purposes of poetry, smoothing a line or com- 
pleting the requisite number of feet. Such are " Most 
High/' "Most Gracious/' "the Eternal/' "Mighty," 
" Almighty," &c. These are all the improvements of 
Rouse upon "the Psalms which God has given." They 
belong not to the work of the Holy Spirit, but are the 
work of man. 

In the third place, there are many scores of adjectives 
and similar qualifying terms thrown in, and put where 
the Holy Spirit never put them; such as bashful, dread- 
ful, bright, clear, glorious, gloriously, sharply, closed, 
subtilely, wrong, spitefully, wholly, fierce, fiercely, cheer- 
fully, plenteously, devouring, lofty, cruel, sore, safely, 
faintly, openly, proud, flaming, beloved, dear, truly, 
continually, dolefully, exceedingly, malicious, greatly, 
secretly, openly, lewd, mournfully, profanely, pure, un- 
tainted, unspotted, sweet, straight, divine, earnestly, 
carefully, devouring, perplexedly, perfect, and many 
others of the same sort. These, in the places from which 
we have copied them, are examples of mere poetical 
license — mere patchwork — " human inventions" to save 
the credit of the verse, lest it should appear like " the 
legs of the lame." Of course, they are no part of "the 
word of God," and therefore form another large collec- 
tion of exceptions to " the literal or correct translation." 
Again, we appeal to every candid mind, whether it be a 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 35 

fair statement to speak of such a system of Psalmody as 
"the inspired Psalter"— "God's Psalm book" — "the 
songs of the Holy Spirit," &c. Have they not spoken 
"in haste," who claim for Rouse's version an inspired 
literalness and correctness equal to the prose translation 
of the whole word of God? Yet we are told with all 
possible gravity, that in " these songs the church is fur- 
nished with suitable matter for praising God, * * * 
such matter as is proper to be offered in praise to God, 
* * * the songs in which He has presented his own 
truth in the way which to him seemed best"* And to 
give point and energy to these statements, it is vehe- 
mently inquired, "May we not introduce some things 
into the worship of God for which we have not, Thus 
saith the Lord ?" To which I answer, No !f We would 
respectfully inquire, whether all these patches of " human 
composition" are not " some things f and if so, have 
they a " thus saith the Lord ?" 

"Our plea," say these brethren, "is for a true version 
of the book of Psalms as of Divine authority." " An 
inspired Psalmody only is to be used, to the exclusion of 
the compositions of men, which give human views of 
Divine truth. y ' 'J From this it might be inferred that Rouse 
has not given "human views of Divine truth." Indeed, 
if " the book of Psalms in &fair and full version, a literal 
and faithful version, is alone of Divine authority," as we are 
assured, then it follows that these brethren use only 
a human Psalmody ! Their " worship is without Divine 
appointment." j| In their own language, we say — "these 
are not the songs which God has given to his church j" 
but a system as different as a piece of silk cloth patched 
with more than five hundred fragments of cotton is dif- 
ferent from the pure fabric ! If a strict literal adherence 
to the thought, sentiment and order of the Psalms is 
alone of Divine requirement, then these brethren use a 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 115. 

• - United Presbyterian, of Cincinnati. 
;; Pressly on Psalnicdy, p. 69. 

j Apology, p. 103. 



36 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

system of human origin. It would be easy to quote from 
their volume of praise, many pages of these "human 
views of Divine truth," which they so zealously denounce 
and so constantly sing ! We have space, however, for 
only a few additional examples, from Psalm 18. 

__ PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

I was also upright before him. Sincere he/ore him was my heart, 

With him upright was I. 

Thou wilt save the afflicted For thou wilt the afflicted save, 
people. In grief that low do lie. 

For thou wilt light my candle. The Lord will light my candle so, 

That it shall shine full bright. 

By thee I have run through a By thee through troops of menl break 
troop. And them discomfit all. 

We respectfully submit, that in these and many other 
similar specimens, for which we have not room, " human 
views " constitute more than half of what is called a a 
fair and literal version," " an inspired Psalmody exclu- 
sively ! " And in view of such facts as these, may we 
not retort upon these brethren the inquiry, " Is not your 
own Psalmody a presumptuous attempt to improve the 
work of God ? " * Is it thus you treat " those Divine 
hymns in which you are taught by infinite wisdom how 
to praise Him ? "f 

Before closing this letter we wish to notice a paragraph 
from Dr. Junkin's work "on the Prophecies," which 
these brethren often quote in this discussion with great 
apparent satisfaction. " Dr. Watts," says Dr. J., " has at- 
tempted to improve upon the very sentiment and matter 
and order of the Psalms." Again, "God's order of 
thought is doubtless the best for his church." Now sup- 
pose we grant what is here asserted, does not Rouse alter 
the matter and order and sentiment of the Psalms? 
Look at the specimens in previous pages ! Is there no 
attempt to improve upon the sentiment there ? No change 

* Preacher, April 5th, 1844. 
f Preacher, March 8th, 1844. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 37 

of order t Take a few specimens in which Rouse inverts 
the Divine order : 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

Hide thy face from my sins and All mine iniquities blot out, 
blot out all mine iniquities. Thy face hide from my sins. 

Every one of them is gone They altogether filthy are, 
backward, they are altogether They all are backward gone, 
become filthy. 

In God have I put my trust ; I will not fear what flesh can do, 
I will not fear what man can do My trust is in the Lord. 
unto me. 

They have prepared a net for My soul's bound down ; for they a 
my steps ; my soul is bowed down. net 

Have laid my steps to snare. 

God will save Zion, and build For God will Judah's cities build, 
the cities of Judah. And he will Sion save. 

In the Psalmody of these brethren, there are from forty 
to fifty such inversions of " God's order of thought. " Of 
course the crime in the one case is not less than in the 
other. Rouse and Dr. Watts are in the same condemna- 
tion. Dr Watts, for example, transposed a part of the 
verses of Psalm 119, "in order to attain some degree of 
connection." This was done in a Psalm of which the 
pious Matthew Henry says, "there is seldom any cohe- 
rence among the verses." There was therefore some ex- 
cuse for Dr. Watts in changing "the order " of the origi- 
nal — but these brethren reverse " God's order of thought'' 
where there is no such apology, nor any other, except that 
it is so in the " version ! " Let common sense decide 
which is the more guilty party. 

But in view of such transpositions as these, perhaps 
they can inform us whether the " mind of the Spirit is 
exhibited so awkwardly as to render it necessary that the 
verses should be much transposed."* 

We here close our strictures on the additions sanctioned 

and sung by these brethren, upon " the songs which God 

has given to his church." If we had no further proof, 

this would suffice to show that the principle which re- 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 114. 



38 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

quires a " correct and faithful version of the whole book 
of Psalms, as of Divine appointment/' is the merest 
figment of the human brain. But to make assurance 
doubly sure, we propose in our next Letter to demonstrate 
that these brethren are guilty of numerous omissions from 
"the songs in which God has taught us how to praise/' 
" from the very matter in which he has presented his own 
truth in the way which to him seemed best." * We shall 
thus more fully test the professions of these brethren, 
viz. that " like the prose version of the Bible, their 
Psalmody is the word of God." Suppose that any man 
or set of men should publish the whole Bible with such 
comments, explanations and other human patchwork as 
the foregoing specimens from Bouse, would any person 
venture seriously to offer such commixture as the pure 
Scriptures, the genuine "productions of the Holy Spirit?" 
Let reason decide. 



LETTER IV. 

BOOK OF PSALMS NOT DESIGNED TO BE THE ONLY PERPETUAL AND 
UNCHANGEABLE PSALMODY OF THE CHURCH — NOT SO REGARDED 
BY THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, HER MARTYRS AND HOLY MEN — 

"A MODERN DISCOVERY" NOT PRACTICALLY ADOPTED BY THESE 

BRETHREN THEMSELVES — OMISSION OF PSALM 72: 20 — MOST OF 
THE INSPIRED TITLES EXCLUDED FROM ROUSE — THESE PROVED 
TO BE A PART OF THE INSPIRED TEXT BY DR. ALEXANDER, 
HORNE AND OTHERS — A GLANCE AT THE PRESBYTERIAN THEORY 
OF PSALMODY. 

My Dear Sir : — The theory of Psalmody taught by 
the writers we have so often quoted is this : The book 
of Psalms was designed by its all-wise Author as the un- 
changeable, all-sufficient and perpetual system of praise, 
composed for this express object, and of course perfectly 
adapted to this end. Hence, they infer, to take from or 
* Preacher, June 14th, 1S44. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 39 

to add to this, which is " God's Psalm book " — in other 
words, to treat it as anything but a complete and perfect 
system of praise for New Testament times, is a species of 
impiety ! Not less so than to cut out a part of the Bible, 
or attempt to improve, by additions or otherwise, any 
other part of the canon of Divine revelation. 

That we have fairly stated their views is plain. " Do 
you think," inquires one, " that the word of God has 
been given in such a defective form that some parts of it 
may be laid aside as useless, while portions may be se- 
lected, &c."* He is arguing against the omission of any 
part of the Psalms, and calls such omission " laying 
aside as useless parts of the word of God." 

"The book of Psalms," adds another, "was given as a 
part of Divine revelation, * * given to the church as the 
matter of her Psalmody." "To take away from its ap- 
pointed use any portion of sacred Scripture is tantamount 
to taking it from the Bible." And to enforce this view, 
he quotes several texts such as these — " Add thou not 
unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a 
liar. ,} " If any man shall take away from the words of 
this book, God shall take away his part out of the book of 
life."f 

These extracts show with sufficient clearness the pre- 
cise position of these brethren, and the great marvel is, 
that they seem never to have suspected that they were re- 
cording their own doom ! We have proved in previous 
Letters, that adding to the matter of the Psalms is their 
habitual practice — that their system embraces many large 
patches of " human composition." And we are now 
about to prove that " they lay aside as useless large portions 
of the word of God;" in other words, they omit parts of 
the Psalms from their system of praise. 

But before proceeding to the proof, we premise one or 
two observations : 

1. This notion of the absolute and intangible sacred- 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 112. 
+ Apology, pp. 101, 116. 



40 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

ness of the book of Psalms as the system of praise for 
the church in all ages, is purely a modern discovery ! 

The fearful crime of adding to and taking away from 
the book of life, viz. by omitting to use " a faithful and 
literal version of the Psalms " — seems never to have 
suggested itself to the church of Scotland in her earliest 
and best days. Take for example the 51st Psalm, sung 
by the martyr Wishart, shortly before he suffered death.* 
As it stands in our Bibles, it consists of nineteen 
verses and fifty-three lines : as sung by Wishart there 
are twenty verses and one hundred and forty lines. 
Here is verse 7 : " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be 
clean • wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." The 
martyr sung it as follows : 

This isope is humility, 

Right law intill ascence. 

The snaw sa white in all degree 

Betokens Innocence. 

For an this twa do govern me 

I shall do nane offence. 

To thy mercy will I go. 

The whole nineteen verses are paraphrased in this style 
— the which, if found in the Presbyterian Psalmody, 
would be denounced as exposing its authors to a degree 
of impiety little short of that of " Nadab and Abihu," 
&c. In truth, as compared with Wishart' s broad para- 
phrase, Dr. Watts has given quite a close versification ! 
See Watts' Psalm 51 for the proof. 

And when we look into the earliest metre Psalms 
adopted by the church of Scotland, we are at once struck 
with the entire absence of anything like " a fair and 
literal version." The versification of Sternhold and 
Hopkins was introduced, as we are told by Dr. M'Crie 
in his Life of Knox, " at the establishment of the Re« 
formation," and " was in general use till the time of the 
Westminster Assembly." Of course, we have only to 
consult Sternhold and Hopkins to know whether that 
church adopted the principle of these brethren. That 
* See Howie's Scots Worthies, p. 46. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 41 

they did not is conceded by all parties. In his report to 
the Associate Synod on the "improvement of Psalmody,"* 
Dr. Beveridge, Professor of Theology at Xenia, speaks 
of Sternhold and Hopkins as follows : " While in some 
instances the adherence to the original is at least as exact 
as in our present version, in other cases great liberty has 
been taken," and the versification is "far removed from 
any thing like a close translation." Thus we learn from 
the best authority, that the Psalmody of the church of 
Scotland in her purest days of reformation, and in the 
period of her martyrs, was only "in some instances " as 
exact in adherence to the original as that by Rouse, while 
in others it was no version at all, "nor any thing like it." 
To prove the correctness of Dr. B's. statements, we 
might cite any number of pages from that ancient 
Psalmody. For the present, two examples must suffice. 
The first is in Psalm 125 : 1. 

PROSE VERSION. STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS. 

They that trust in the Lord, Those who do put their confidence . 
shall be as Mount Zion, which Upon the Lord our God only 
cannot be removed, but abideth And flee to him for their defense 
forever. In all their need and misery : 

Their faith is sure still to endure 
Grounded on Christ the corner stone. 
Moved with none ill, but standeth 

still 
Steadfast like to the Mount Sion. 

A glance will suffice to satisfy any one whether this 
be " a correct and faithful version or translation ! " Yet 
one of these brethren in his book on Psalmody, calls it 
"a full version," and quotes others who term it "an 
excellent translation," and " the word of God ! " Thus 
they place this human paraphrase or explanation on a 
level with "the word of God ! " 

Our second example is from Psalm 2 : 1, 2. 

PKOSE VERSION. STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS. 

Why do the heathen rage and Why did the Gentiles tumults raise 
the people imagine a vain thing. What rage teas in their brain / 

Why did the Jewish people muse, 
Seeing all is but vaine. 
* Evangelical Repository, April, 1S51. 
4* 



42 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

PROSE VERSION. STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS. 

The kings of the earth set The kings and rulers of the earth 
themselves, and the rulers take Conspire and all are bent 
counsel together, against the Against the Lord and Christ his 
Lord, and against his anointed. Sonne, 

Which he amongst us sent. 

Now we respectfully submit whether on the principles 
adopted by our brethren, this be not the grievous crime 
of "adding to the word of God/' Observe here the 
identical sin for which they so eloquently denounce our 
Psalmody, viz. " the gospel turn/' by which the 
Psalmist is represented as speaking of " Christ the cor- 
ner stone," &c, in the common language of the Christian 
as distinguished from the Jew ! 

What floods of ink have been expended in heaping 
abuse upon Dr. Watts, for the very thing which here had 
the sanction and approbation of the purest church of the 
Reformation, and in the days of her greatest glory. If 
these brethren will point out in our system of Psalmody 
any more gross and daring attempt to " convert David 
into a Christian," viz. "Levitical ceremonies and Hebrew 
forms of speech changed into the worship of the gospel 
and explained in the language of our time and nation/'* 
they are welcome to denounce us as worse than the 
Scottish church before the days of the Westminster As- 
sembly. So evident is it that the fundamental principle 
of our authors is itself a modern " human invention." 

2. A second preliminary remark : 

These brethren, notwithstanding their harsh language, 
do not practically adopt their own theory. They do net 
act as though tliey believed us Presbyterians guilty habit- 
ually of crimes not unlike those of " Uzza, Nadab and 
Abihu," &c. On the contrary, they often speak of us 
as a prominent branch of the Christian church, of " in- 
tellectual, moral and religious worth, extended activity, 
great resources and happy influence. "f They are always 
willing to receive the members of our congregations into 

* Dr. Watts. 

•\ M'Master's Apology, p. 4. 



TYHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 43 

theirs, nor do they ordinarily require any expression of 
sorrow for this sin of singing hymns, nor a renunciation 
of private views on the subject, provided they give no 
trouble. Nay more, they will receive our ministers, 
though of such corrupt principles, and even install them 
m their chairs of Theology* Surely, if these brethren 
really thought that we Presbyterians had fallen so griev- 
ously tinder the curse of God, as their theory teaches, 
they would not thus deal with us ! As to the thousands 
of eminently pious persons who have " fallen asleep" 
with the language of our Psalmody on their lips, we leave 
these brethren to decide what has become of them ! 

With these preliminary remarks, we proceed to demon- 
strate certain omissions from the " inspired Psalmody." 

They have " laid aside as useless" the 20th verse of 
the 72d Psalm : " The prayers of David the son of Jesse 
are ended." This verse is excluded from Rouse. Nor 
can it be truly alleged that it does not form a part of the 
inspired Psalter. There is some difference of opinion 
among our most eminent Oriental scholars, as to the re- 
lation which this verse bears to what precedes, whether as 
the close of the 72d Psalm, or rather as a general finale 
of the second book, or second leading division into which 
the Psalms have been distinguished. All agree, how- 
ever, that this verse is a constituent part of the words of 
inspiration, and of the sacred songs of Zion. It is found 
in the original Hebrew, in the Greek Septuagint, and in 
the Latin Vulgate — the two latter of which use, instead 
of prayers of David, the terms humnoi and laudes — the 
hymns and praises of David. 

Dr. Addison Alexander, in his " Commentary on the 
Psalms," thinks it most probable that these words belong 
u to the first great subdivision of the whole collection." 
As to their relation to the verses immediately preceding, 
he decides that the verse " forms no part of the 72d 
Psalm, but relates to the whole series or book preceding." 

* The case of Professor Dinwiddie, formerly o"f Allegheny City, is 
referred to. He was a colleague of Dr. Pressly. 



4-4 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

Dr. A., however, is far from excluding this verse, as 
Rouse does, from the inspired Psalms. So also the 
learned Home, in his " Introduction," gives it as his 
judgment, that this verse " simply means the Psalms of 
David in that (me 2d) book," or general division. But 
he quotes Bishop Horsely as judging it to be "the close 
of the particular Psalm in question, viz. the 72d." 
"The sense," says Bishop H., "is that David the son 
of Jesse had nothing to pray for or to wish beyond the 
great things described in this Psalm. Nothing," adds 
Bishop H., " can be more animated than this conclu- 
sion. Having described the blessings of Messiah's reign, 
he closes with this magnificent doxology : 

Blessed be Jehovah God, 

God of Israel alone performing wonders ; 

And blessed bo his name of glory, 

And let his glory fill the whole earth. 

Amen and Amen. 

Finished are the prayers of David, the son of Jesse. 

Scott, Henry, Poole, and other judicious commenta- 
tors, agree with this eloquent tribute of Bishop Horsely. 

Here, then, on the theory of these brethren, is a 
plain and inexcusable mutilation of the word of God. 
They have no more right to exclude this verse from 
"God's Psalm book," than any other verse; and it is 
equally an "impious license" to lay this verse "aside 
as useless," as to exclude any other part of the Psalms ! 
Thus they renounce their whole theory as worthless- — 
they treat it with respect only so far as suits their con- 
venience ! They expose themselves to the tremendous 
doom of him who " taketh away from the word of life V- 
No author of eminence has ever questioned the right of 
this verse to be deemed a component part of the inspired 
record. By what authority, then, have these brethren 
ventured to exclude it from the songs which the}^ profess 
to regard as bearing the great seal of God Almighty as 
the perfect and perpetual Psalm book of his church, "to 
which nothing must be added, and from which nothing 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 45 

taken away," under pain of the infinite displeasure of the 
Author ? 

Another great omission : 

These brethren have " laid aside as useless" most of 
the titles of the Psalms, which often shed so much light 
upou their matter. That these inscriptions are of canoni- 
cal or inspired authority, is fully established by Dr. 
Alexander. In the preface to his Commentary, he refers 
to iC the strenuous attempts which have been made by 
modern writers to discredit these titles as spurious addi- 
tions of later date." " These attempts," he adds, " are 
defeated by the fact that they are found in the Hebrew 
text, as far as we can trace its history, not as addenda, 
but as integral parts of the composition. And such in- 
dications of the author and the subject at the commence- 
ment of a composition, are familiar both to classical and 
Oriental usage. That the truth of these inscriptions may 
in every case be vindicated," &c. And in his note on 
the title of Psalm 3, he adds, " This is not a mere in- 
scription, hut a part of the text and inseparable from it, 
so far as we can trace its history. It was an ancient 
usage, both among classical and Oriental writers, for the 
author to introduce his own name into the first sentence 
of his composition. The titles of the Psalms ought not, 
therefore, to have been printed in a different type, or as 
something added to the text. In all Hebrew manu- 
scripts," continues Dr. A., " they bear the same relation 
to the body of the Psalm that the inscriptions in the 
prophets or in Paul's epistles bear to the substance of 
the composition." The testimony of this learned and 
accomplished scholar is summarily as follows : 

1. The titles of the Psalms are parts of the inspired 
text. Yet they are excluded from the Psalmody of these 
brethren, and thus they " lay aside as useless" a large 
portion of the songs which God gave to his church. 

2. Dr. A. assures us that these titles bear the same 
relation to the Psalms as the inscriptions in the prophets 
and in Paul's epistles bear to the writings themselves; 



46 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

i. e., they belong to the Divine record, were given by 
the Holy Ghost. Yet they are rejected from the Psalm- 
ody employed by these brethren. 

But we have other testimony. The learned and dis- 
tinguished Home, in his " Introduction to the Study of 
the Scriptures," whilst he candidly admits u that many 
of the titles prefixed to the Psalms are of very question- 
able authority, as not being extant in the Hebrew manu- 
scripts" yet concedes that we "have no reason to suppose 
that very many of them are not canonical parts of the 
Psalms."* Thus Home concurs with Alexander, that 
the titles which " are extant in the best Hebrew manu- 
scripts" are of undoubted canonical authority. Why, 
then, are they nearly all " laid aside as useless" by those 
who insist upon u a fair and correct version of the whole 
book as of Divine appointment !"•(" Is not this a daring 
attempt to be wiser than God ? 

The number of Psalms having titles is one hundred 
and twenty-five. J These inscriptions in the original 
Hebrew are incorporated in the sacred text, and each 
title forms a part or the whole of the first sentence or 
verse of each Psalm. Only ten of these titles are versi- 
fied by Rouse, and the other one hundred and fifteen form 
a body of inspired matter equal to fifteen songs of praise 
of the size of Psalm 1, all of which is rejected by these 
brethren ! In all these instances a verse, or part of a 
verse of " God's Psalm book" is excluded from the posi- 
tion where Infinite Wisdom placed it ! And is this the 
way in which these brethren observe " the Divine ap- 
pointment of the whole book to be sung ?" From 
Sabbath to Sabbath they use a mutilated versification 
of " the Holy Spirit's Psalms !" Would they dare to 
exclude the inscriptions of Isaiah and Paul ? Let any 
one read the prophecy of Isaiah, omitting the first verse, 
which Home says is "the general title of the book •" or 

* Vol. 4, pp. 105, 106. 
f M'Master's Apology. 
J Home, vol. 4, p. 105. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 47 

let bim read the Epistle to the Ephesians, " laying aside 
as useless" the first verse or title, and see what sad work 
it makes with the inspired record ! Yet this very thing 
these brethren do with nearly all the titles of the Psalms. 
Thus it is obvious that they have adopted a principle in 
relation to " Divine appointment of the whole book of 
Psalms," which they habitually violate in their practice. 
Of course, their arguments will have little weight with 
Presbyterians, until we discover that their practice is in 
conformity with their settled principles. 

It may be supposed that the argument from the omis- 
sion of the inspired titles, has met with violent opposi- 
tion. "The title of a song, we are told, and the song 
itself, are distinct things and for distinct uses ; this dis- 
tinction is well understood and universally observed/'* 
But this is surely a very flimsy sort of argument. " The ti- 
tle of a song and the song itself are distinct things" — very 
well. The title of a prophecy and the prophecy itself are 
equally distinct things ; and the title of an epistle and the 
epistle itself are also distinct things. Therefore the practice 
of including along with the text and reading the title to 
the prophecy of Isaiah, of which Home says " the first 
verse forms the general title," is an absurd usage ! 
Isaiah's title should of course be "laid aside as useless !" 
And so of Paul's epistles. The practice of including 
the titles contained in the first verses as parts of the epis- 
tles, to be read as a portion of the inspired text, is also 
a very absurd thing ! We take it for granted, therefore, 
that when these brethren read the prophecies and epis- 
tles, they drop all the inspired titles ! This would be 
treating Isaiah and Paul only as they treat David and 
others " who spake by the Holy Ghost !" 

But it is further objected, that "it is not certain by what 
authority many of the titles were made."* Suppose this 
to be true, what follows? That all, both those which 
are of undoubted authority, as well as those which are 
doubtful, must be excluded from the sacred text ? Sure- 

* Preacher, September, 1852, edited by Dr. Kerr. 



48 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

ly not. The learned Home admits that " some of them 
are undoubtedly not of equal antiquity with the inspired 
text" — and the proof is, " they are not extant in the 
Hebrew manuscripts." Here, then, is a valid and most 
safe test to distinguish the inspired titles from those not 
of Divine origin. And as Home further informs us that 
one hundred and twenty-five of the Psalms have " titles 
in the Hebrew Scriptures," only twenty-five being with- 
out them, is it a good and valid reason for rejecting them 
all, either to be read or sung, because some of them are 
of " questionable authority ?" 

Is this a good and sufficient reason for repudiating the 
whole one hundred and twenty -five titles, as well the few 
spurious as the many inspired, as "parts of the Psalms !" 
Truly this evinces most extraordinary respect for the 
productions of inspiration. Dr. Alexander, however, 
gives no intimation of such a distinction, but recognizes 
all the inscriptions as parts of the inspired text, as really 
as the inscriptions to the prophecies and epistles; and I 
strongly suspect that Dr. A., who is universally acknow- 
ledged to be one of the most profound and accomplished 
Hebrew scholars in this or any other country, is right, 
and that Home is mistaken in this matter. 

"We have thus the deliberate and well considered judg- 
ment of scholars of the highest eminence, affirming that 
many of the titles are "canonical parts of the Psalms;" 
and that "we have no reason to suppose" the contrary. 
It follows, therefore, that if " the whole book of Psalms 
is of Divine appointment" to be sung, these brethren 
must sing the canonical titles, or be convicted of taking 
away from, or " laying aside as useless/' parts of the 
songs of inspiration. 

Not the least curious feature of this whole subject re- 
mains to be noticed. It cannot be denied that Bouse has 
embodied in his verse ten of the titles of the Psalms. 
Thus it happens that the very men who treat with the 
utmost scorn the idea of singing these inscriptions, are 
found doing this very thing! This is clearly proved 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 49 

by the distinguished Home. He says : " The untitled 
Psalms in our English version amount to thirty-seven ; 
but ma 111/ of these are Hallelujah Psalms,* which have 
lost their inscriptions, because the venerable translators 
have rendered the Hebrew word Hallelujah, by the ex- 
pression, ' Praise the Lord/ which they have made a 
"part of the Psalm" &c. From this it appears, that 
copying the Hebrew original, the translators have em- 
bodied the Hebrew titles of "many of the Psalms" in 
the English version, rendering it, "Praise the Lord." 
Now what is true of our translation, is also true of 
Rouse's versification, as any one can see for himself. 
Hence it follows that these brethren themselves do what 
they regard as so very absurd, viz. they sing the titles of 
at least ten of the Psalms ! Home also says of the Hal- 
lelujah Psalms : " To ten Psalms is prefixed the title 
i Hallelujah/ which, as already intimated, forms part 
of the first verse in our English translation, [and in 
House's version also,] and is rendered, Praise the Lord." 
Thus these brethren do the very thing which they hold 
in so much contempt, viz. they sing certain sacred songs, 
li commencing with their titles /" But if it be true, as 
one writer affirms, that " these titles were never intended 
to he sung ;"j* then to this extent their worship is with- 
out Divine authority ! In addition they assume that cer- 
tain portions (the titles,) of about one hundred psalms, 
are unsuitable for Divine worship. They presume to ex- 
clude and "lay aside as useless" parts of "the songs 
composed in heaven," and affirm that it is perfectly right 
to do so. Did our church ever take such strong ground 
as this ? 

But in regard to those titles which our brethren sing, 
it has been said that in the original Hebrew, " Hallelu- 
jah" "is clearly a part of the Psalm." But this is no 
more true of the title " Hallelujah," than of all the other 

* Home says the Hallelujah Psalms are : 106, 111, 112, 113, 135, 
146,147, 14S, 149, 150. 

f Preacher, 1852, by Dr. Kerr. 

5 



50 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

titles. Every one who can read the Hebrew, knows that 
this title stands in the precise position toward the Halle- 
lujah Psalms that all the other titles occupy toward their 
respective songs of praise, i. e. they stand as part of the 
first verse, or compose the whole of it. 

We have then the decision of Dr. Alexander, that to 
omit the titles is "to mutilate the sacred text." Tholuck 
and Hengstenberg take the same ground. These inscrip- 
tions existed when the Septuagint was formed, two hun- 
dred and eighty years before the Advent, and were even 
then venerable for antiquity. Kitto receives all of them 
u except when there is strong internal evidence against 
them."* Indeed the evidence in their favor is so conclu- 
sive, that these brethren themselves admit them as in- 
spired, except when they are engaged in controversy. 
Thus a correspondent of one of their leading magazines 
says : " The titles of the Psalms were written not by the 
persons who collected them, but by the sacred poets them- 
selves. A similar practice obtained among the ancient 
Arabian and Syrian poets, of prefixing their names to 
their songs. The same thing occurs in the writings of 
the prophets, e. g., the prediction of Balaam, the psalm 
of Habakkuk, and the song of Hezekiah. Numbers 24, 
Habakkuk 3, Isaiah 38. That David followed this cus- 
tom, at least occasionally, is evident from 2 Samuel 22, 
compared with Psalm 18. We may also with great confi- 
dence, refer to him those titles, e. g., Psalms 22, 56, 
which are poetical in form, and describe the subject of 
the Psalm."')' As to the suitableness of the matter of the 
titles, if that were an open question with these brethren, 
it would be easy to show that many of these titles are 
quite as suitable for song as some other parts of the col- 
lection. For example, Psalm 102 : " a prayer of the 

* Biblical Cyclopedia. A high authority adds : " Editorial audacity 
or ignorance has sometimes gone so far as to omit the titles or inscrip- 
tions of the Psalms as forming no part of the text." — Biblical Reper- 
tory, April, 1859. 

f Christian Instructor, edited by Dr. Dales, of Philadelphia, March, 
1855. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 51 

afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his 
complaint before the Lord/' So also Psalm 18, 51, &c. 

"We arc thus brought to the conclusion, that most of 
the titles are " inspired portions of the Psalms/' originally 
u composed by the sacred poets themselves." These 
brethren have incorporated at least ten of them in 
their Psalmody, and they thus recognize them as constit- 
uent parts of " the songs composed in heaven/' " the 
whole book" which they say is " of Divine appointment" 
as the unchangeable and perpetual Psalmody of the 
church. By what authority they venture to u lay aside 
as useless" the other one hundred and fifteen titles as 
H not intended to be sung," every one must determine 
for himself. It will require something more than angry 
exclamation to prove that they do not,* in this thing, lay 
down their weapons and virtually come over to the Pres- 
byterian camp. The titles which are excluded would 
form not less than forty-five songs of the size of Psalni 
117. How then can they profess to employ "the whole 
book ?" 

In conclusion of this Letter, let us glance at the safe 
position of the Presbyterian church. Our principle, as 
already intimated, affirms that " the whole word of God 
is of use to direct us in praise as well as in prayer," and 
that in the New Testament dispensation we are not limited 
to the precise Psalmody of the Jews in every sentence, 
line, sentiment, &c. 

We maintain that from the rich, abundant and Divine 
treasures provided by the Head of the church in the 
book of Psalms and in other portions of the Scriptures, 
the church, by her highest ecclesiastical authorities, is 
authorized to select, arrange and introduce all suitable 
matters for this precious part of Divine worship. We 
love the book of Psalms, and agree that scarcely any 
language can be employed too strong and glowing to 
speak its Divine excellencies and beauties. But we think 
it no disparagement to say of parts of some of them, a 
part of the titles for example, that they are not so well 



52 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

suited for Divine worship under the present dispensation 
as some other parts of Scripture, just as we think scarce- 
ly any language too exalted to describe the Divine excel- 
lencies of the Bible, which we love and reverence as the 
text book of the pulpit, and to be read in public wor- 
ship • but there are passages in those Scriptures which 
no man of common sense would venture to take as his 
text, or even to read from the pulpit ! Some texts, for 
example, in the Levitical law, and which were read to 
the Jews in their worship. Nor is it any reproach to the 
word of God to say so — because though " all Scripture 
was given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, reproof, instruction in righteousness, " &c, yet 
the several portions were designed by Infinite Wisdom for 
different uses in the church, and her judicatories and min- 
isters have abundant instruction in the sacred pages them- 
selves, and by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, to guide 
them aright in the employment of the different portions 
for their Divinely appointed purposes and objects. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 53 



LETTER V. 

ROUSE A " PARAPHRASE," NOT A VERSION, OR TRANSLATION — NOT 

''AS LITERAL AS THE LAWS OF VERSIFICATION WILL ALLOW " 

A GLANCE AT THE HISTORY OF SCOTTISH PSALMODY PRIOR TO THE 

PUBLICATION OF ROUSE STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS — ITS LOOSE 

PARAPHRASES AND " GOSPEL TURNS" — THE ACTS OF THE GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND REPRESENT ROUSE AS A 
PARAPHRASE — SO CALLED MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES, BUT NOT 

ONCE A VERSION — VARIOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED — CONCLUSIONS 

THE REAL QUESTION "WHETHER SHALL WE SING ROUSE'S PARA- 
PHRASE OR WATTS' PARAPHRASE" THE PRINCIPLE OF A CORRECT 

AND FAITHFUL VERSION AS ALONE OF AUTHORITY, A MODERN 
INVENTION. 

My Dear Sir: — It has now been demonstrated, if 
we mistake not, that " the inspired Psalmody' 7 of these 
brethren, " their literal and faithful version" (or trans- 
lation) is a patchwork paraphrase, embracing an amount 
of " the mere effusions of men" sufficiently large to make 
in the aggregate at least fifteen entire " songs of praise" 
of the size of Psalm 1, and not less than forty -five com- 
plete Psalms of the size of Psalm 117. Yet all this is 
in constant use by those who, with the language of fear- 
ful warning on their lips, tell us " we have no author- 
ity to use the productions of uninspired men !"* All this 
is dignified with the titles " the Holy Spirit's Psalms," 
and " the word of God, for the same reason that the 
prose translation of the Bible is the word of God !" 
This "full and faithful version" (or translation) is af- 
firmed to be imperfect only " as the prose translation is 
so," &c, &c. Yet where in the " prose translation of the 
Psalms" can these brethren find one hundred and seventy- 
four complete lines added to the inspired text? Where 
will they discover matter and language of " mere human 
invention" sufficient to compose fifteen whole Psalms 
such as Psalm 1, or forty-five such as Psalm 117. The 
thing is impossible, for the whole Protestant world agree 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 15. 
5* 



54 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

that the English version of the Bible is distinguished for 
its remarkable literalness, accuracy, and closeness with 
the Hebrew ; and if " susceptible of improvement" at 
all, it is only as the works of all men are so, from the 
very nature of man as an imperfect creature. 

It has moreover been shown, that by rejecting verse 
20 of Psalm 72, along with most of the inspired titles, 
they " lay aside as useless" a large amount of inspired 
matter originally indited by the Holy Spirit, and no doubt 
sung in the worship of the church under a former dis- 
pensation. Yet we are assured these brethren sing " in- 
spired songs only," "the book from heaven!"* 

The array of facts and quotations in previous Letters, 
also sheds light upon the question, " Did the church of 
Scotland, when she authorized f Rouse's paraphrase/ 
consider it i a literal and faithful translation Y " If she 
did, that venerable church certainly made a most singular 
and unaccountable mistake. If we adopt the views of 
these brethren, that church gave Rouse their sanction 
" as a literal or correct translation of the original." 
" And it is still retained, we are told, because as a true 
and literal translation, it is decidedly superior to any 
oilier in the English language. "f Again, "it is framed 
on the principle of a translation of the original as literal 
as the laws of versification will allow." J 

Now these are certainly extraordinary assertions. Take 
for instance almost any of the examples so readily occur- 
ring : 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

But overthrew Pharaoh and But overwhelm' d and lost 
his host in the Bed Sea. Was proud king Pharaoh, 

With all his mighty host, 
And chariots also. 

Now can any intelligent person imagine that the church 
of Scotland really adopted such paraphrases as this with 
the conviction that they are " a true and literal version or 

* United Presbyterian, of Cincinnati, 
j" Preacher, December 13, 1844. 
J Pressly on Psalmody, p. 117. 



• 



WHAT SOXGS ARE INSPIRED. 55 

translation — superior to any other in the English lan- 
guage ?" Is it conceivable that that venerable church now 
considers such loose paraphrase " as literal as the laws of 
versification will allow ! ,; * If these brethren cannot frame 
any more closely literal versification of the foregoing 
verse, let them go to Dr. Watts, who has it as follows : 

But cruel Pharaoh there 
With all his host he drowned. 

So also in verse 10 of the same Psalm : 

PROSE VERSION. ROUSE. 

To him that smote Egypt in To him that Egypt smote, 
their first born. Who did his message scorn; 

And in his anger hot 
Did kill all their first-born. 

This is no translation at all, but a broad paraphrase. 
Dr. Watts has a much more " literal version :" 

He smote their first born sons, 
The flower of Egypt, dead. 

These are given as mere specimens, but they are faith- 
ful illustrations of the power of prejudice to blind the 
minds of even good men.f 

In the light of many such curious facts as these, 
we proceed to examine the several acts of the General 
Assembly of the church of Scotland from 1644 down to 
1650, when what is called " Rouse's version" was for- 
mally adopted and recommended to " kirks and fami- 
lies." And the first glance at these acts establishes the 
fact, that they uniformly call House not a version (or trans- 
lation) but only a " paraphrase." In these official de- 
crees we find such phraseology as, " paraphrase of the 
Psalms" — " new paraphrase" — " our own paraphrase"— 
" examining and revising the paraphrase" — "considering 
the English paraphrase" — " authorizing said paraphrase" 

* Address, December, 1836. 

+ In a book just published in Philadelphia by Dr. Cooper and others, 
they say, " we adhere in our praises to the very matter provided for us 
by Him whose praises we celebrate/' — True Psalmody, p. 10. Rouse, 
"the very matter provided by God!" 



56 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

— and finally in 1650, " approving and ordaining said 
paraphrase, and no other, to be used throughout this king- 
dom/' &c. In these various acts of the Scottish Assembly, 
the term " paraphrase" is employed not less than twenty 
times, and not once is the system called a version ! Does all 
this look as though they considered it " a literal and faithful 
version or translation of the original ?" If such men 
as Alexander Henderson, Rutherford, Gillespie, &c, 
knew the meaning of their mother tongue, they were 
surely never guilty of such blunders. In scores of in- 
stances a mere school boy could frame a more literal yet 
equally smooth versification. 

To weaken the force of this evidence, it has been said 
that by the term paraphrase, the Scottish Assembly 
meant version. No example, however, has been adduced 
of such a use, or rather abuse, of language. Ralph Ers- 
kine, who flourished a century and a quarter nearer the 
period of that Assembly (1649) than we are, may be re- 
garded as good authority on the question. He calls his 
versification of the Song of Solomon " a paraphrase, or 
large explicatory poem." Of the nature of his "ver- 
sion" one fact is sufficient proof : the title contained in 
the first line, is paraphrased into sixteen lines. And so 
of all the rest. This was what Ralph Erskine meant by 
(( paraphrase, or large explicatory poem." 

This should satisfy every candid mind— but even the 
common standards of the English language teach that 
" a paraphrase" is a " loose interpretation, an explana- 
tion in many words,"* and of course it cannot be the same 
as u a version or translation." The General Assembly of 
1649 well knew what they were saying when they author- 
ized u Rouse's paraphrase of the Psalms with the cor- 
rections now given." Most assuredly they could not 
have meant u a literal and faithful translation of the ori- 
ginal!" 

A rapid glance at the early history of Psalmody in the 
church of Scotland, will shed some further light upon 

* Johnson followed by Walker. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 57 

the subject. Prior to 1546 there is no authentic account 
of metred Psalms. But the Psalms were used in some 
form in Divine worship.* It was in this year (1546) 
that Scotland's second martyr, the cotemporary, precep- 
tor and friend of John Knox, and to whom Knox "was 
of all men most indebted," sealed his devotion to his 
Divine Lord and Master with his blood. On the night 
when Wishart was apprehended, he gave a most consoling 
discourse on the death of God's children, and though he 
knew that on the morrow he should go to the stake, he 
said, " Methinks I desire to sleep." He then appointed 
the 51st Psalm to be sung, which had been turned into 
rhyme, &c.f But was this 51st Psalm " a literal and 
faithful version ? " It has been shown in a previous 
Letter that the fifty-three lines in our Bibles were expand- 
ed into one hundred and forty of " the effusion ! " We 
have room for only one additional stanza. 

PROSE VERSION. WISHART'S HYMN. 

Though delightest not in burnt Burnt sacrifice is no delite 
offering. Unto thy Majestie — 

Thou carest not of it one mite 

For sinne to satisfy. 

For only Christ did make us quit 

Of all enormitie. 

To thy mercie will I go. 

This was the form in which the martyrs and early re- 
formers of Scotland sung the Psalms. Those holy men 
do not seem to have suspected any crime in such a gos- 
pel use of the inspired records. The whole song is in 
the same style, paraphrase and " gospel turns" after the 
manner of Dr. Watts ! According to our brethren, this 
was not " practicing Psalmody" at all, but singing " the 
mere effusions of men." J 

This appears to have been among the earliest " metred 

* M'Master's Apology, p. 74. 

■f* Howie's Scots Worthies, p. 46. 

J Yet Dr. Cooper and others tell us: "The reformers of Scotland 
neither made hymns nor sung them." — True Psalmody, p. 124. This 
song of Wishart was as much " a hymn of human composition" as any 
Watts ever wrote. 



58 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

Psalms" in Scotland ; but in the southern parts of the 
island, as far back as 1538, Miles Coverdale (an honored 
name in the annals of the Reformation,) had made the 
earliest known attempt at rendering Psalms into English 
verse for the purposes of sacred song. During the reign 
of Edward VI. he published "Ghostly Psalms and Spir- 
itual Songes, drawen out of the Holy Scripture." In his 
preface Coverdale states that he had " set out certain 
comfortable songs grounded in God's word, and taken 
some out of the Holy Scripture, specially out of the 
Psalms of David, in order that the youth of England," 
&c. His book contained only thirteen Psalms, viz. the 
2d, 11th, 13th, 24th, 45th, 50th, 67th, 123d, 129th, 
133d, 136th, 147th, and 127th. The remainder con- 
sisted of versifications "grounded on other parts of God's 
word." So early did " corruption of Divine worship" 
begin in that church !* 

The versification by Sternhold and Hopkins made its 
appearance 1549-1563, at which latter period was pub- 
lished " The whole Boke of Psahnes collected into Eng- 
lish metre, conferred tviih the JSbrue." This was the 
system of Psalmody used by the church of Scotland for 
one hundred years before the adoption of that by House. 
Was it framed on the principle of "a true and literal 
translation ?" Very far from it. > Professor Beveridge, 
as already quoted, admits that it was not. For example, 
take the last lines of the second Psalm : 

PROSE VERSION. STERXROLD> 

"When his wrath is kindled but If once his wrath never so small 
a little. Blessed are all they that Shall kindle in his breast, 
put their trust in him. then all they trust in Christ 

Shall happy be and blest. 

Here again we find the u gospel turn" so frequently 
used by Dr. Watts ! But besides the constant recur- 
rence of broad paraphrase, to the 75th and 125th Psalms 
are appended " doxologies." The former reads as fol- 
lows : 

* Our authority for these facts is Thomas Hi Home. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 59 

To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
All glory be therefore : 
As in beginning was, is now, 
And shall be evermore. 

The other is larger, and is without the smallest mark 
to distinguish it from the body of the Psalm : 

Glory to God the Father of might, 
And to the Sonne our Saviour, 
And to the Holy Ghost, whose light 
Shine in our hearts and us succor : 
That the right way from day to day 
We may walke and him glorifie : 
With heart's desire all that are here, 
Worship the Lord, and say, Amen. 

These are purely " human composures" added to the 
inspired text, " necessarily defective effusions, claiming 
no higher origin than the ingenuity of man."* If these 
brethren, some of them at least, had lived in the days 
when this Psalmody was used, and had held the same 
views they now profess, they must have seceded from the 
Scottish church. They could not have tolerated such 
"deviations from the appointed order" — such contempt 
of " a punctilious regard to every part of Divine institu- 
tions" — such " intrusion of an unhallowed hand upon 
the ark of God" — such "impious license" — such "en- 
croachment upon the instituted ordinances of God." 
They must have issued their " Testimony" against these 
daring crimes, lest they should partake of the sin of 
"Nadab and Abihu," and fled from a church which by 
thus " adding to the words of God," must have been 
u reproved and found a liar" So true is it, that in 
many points Sternhold and Hopkins' system bears a 
stronger resemblance to the Presbyterian Psalmody than 
to "a true and literal version." In a future Letter -j- 
some further illustrations of these curious facts will be 
adduced, in connection with another topic. 

Thus, then, from the days of Knox and Wishart down 
to the period of the Westminster Assembly, the noble 

* Apology, p. 202. 
t See Letter IX. 



60 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

apostolic church of Scotland decidedly condemned in her 
practice the principle of " a correct and faithful version 
of the whole book of Psalms." This of itself is pre- 
sumption strong against that principle, especially when 
associated with the arrogant claim of " Divine appoint- 
ment, " which of course places the ban upon all else as 
" human invention," "will worship," &c. 

If the reasonings of these brethren be correct, that 
venerable church, for the first century and a quarter of her 
existence, had only a " human Psalmody I" Her martyrs, 
confessors, and apostolic men, sung in the praise of God 
only or chiefly " their own effusions," " the imperfect, 
however well intended, effusions of fallible men," &c! 

If it should be inquired — Why did that venerable 
church lay aside Sternhold and Hopkins, and adopt that 
commonly called Rouse's version ? we answer in the 
words of Dr. Beveridge : " In process of time the change 
in the English language became so great, and the dissat- 
isfaction with this antiquated version so general, that the 
necessity of an improved version became evident." But 
neither Dr. Beveridge nor any other writer that we 
have ever met with, pretends that the change was made 
on the ground that the martyr church of Scotland had for 
a century been guilty of a daring and high handed inva- 
sion of the Divine prerogative — had committed a sin 
resembling the fearful crime of Uzza — had offered in her 
songs of praise the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu ! ! 
There were reasons sufficient, as Dr. Beveridge well ob- 
serves, occasioned by the lapse of time and the revolu- 
tion in language, to warrant a change, without resorting 
to the startling supposition, viz. that the martyr church 
of Scotland then for the first time awoke to the fearful 
fact, that for a hundred years and more she had habitually 
profaned and trampled under foot one of the most pre- 
cious ordinances of God's house ! 

The principle of "a correct and faithful version or trans- 
lation," is thus demonstrated to be a modern invention ! 
It is repudiated by the earliest specimens of Psalmody sung 



TYIIAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 61 

by distinguished reformers, martyrs and holy men of God. 
It is repudiated by the earliest complete versification of 
the Psalms authorized by that church. It is repudiated 
by the very system used by these brethren themselves 
and by the church of Scotland — viz. Rouse. The men 
who framed and introduced it, were familiar with many 
safe precedents in the Scottish, French and other refor- 
mation churches, which gave no countenance to such a 
principle, but the very reverse. They evidently had no 
thought of making " a literal translation," as is demon- 
strated by the title " paraphrase," employed in their sol- 
emn ecclesiastical acts ; and especially, by examining the 
" version " itself, nothing can be plainer than that it is 
very far removed from " a true and literal translation." 
Those who speak of it under this presuming title, and 
call it "an inspired Psalmody," are themselves guilty 
both of "adding to and taking away from the word of 
God." To represent this patchwork system as " an in- 
spired Psalmody," is to degrade the productions of the 
Holy Spirit to a level with the effusions of men !" To 
represent Rouse's paraphrase as " the Psalms and hymns 
and spiritual songs which God has given us in his word,"* 
is a gross abuse of language, to say the very least. 

Let us now turn to some of the objections or evasions, 
by which these conclusions are attempted to be set aside : 

1. To account for the very paraphrastic character of 
Sternhold and Hopkins' psalmody, it has been attributed 
to u the difficulty experienced in that age in making a 
strict translation." But the work itself refutes this eva- 
sion. It gives no explanation at all of the "doxologies" 
before quoted, which are pure "human composition." 
Nor does it account for the numerous "gospel turns," 
paraphrastic and explanatory clauses, &c. &c. No one 
acquainted with the history of the church of Scotland, 
her mighty men of stature, her noble army of martyrs, 
would pay them such an equivocal compliment. It will 
not do to charge upon that glorious old Presbyterian 
* Preacher, February 23, 1844 
6 



62 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

church " intrusion of a profane hand upon the ark of 
God," contempt of " Divine institutions/ ' &c, and then 
apologize, for her crimes, by alleging that she had no 
minds capable of making as " correct and faithful " a 
versification as that of Rouse ! 

These brethren know too well what sort of men consti- 
tuted the early church of Scotland, and comprehend too 
accurately the absurdity of such a solution of the diffi- 
culties suggested by the examples adduced. Besides, 
rather than thus " impiously corrupt the ordinance of 
God," why not chant the prose of their Bibles ? " In 
the Scottish church," says one of these authors, " the re- 
formers are reported to have sung the book of Psalms in 
prose — the form, perhaps, in which it should still be 
used."* If this be so, then surely that noble old church 
was under no necessity of corrupting the Psalms which 
God has given ! She was not chargeable with the un- 
natural crime of giving her children a stone, instead of 
bread — instead of a fish, a scorpion ! But besides all this, 
in many parts Rouse is very little better than Sternhold. 
Thus the difficulty remains in all its force. 

2. Admitting the imperfections of " Rouse's version," 
it is sometimes said : " We are not particular about a 
version, but only contend for the principle of an inspired 
Psalmody." In other words, your theory is very sound, 
but in practice you trample it under foot ! The story is 
told of one who professed to be a very rigid Calvinist, 
but was often found intoxicated and profane ! When he 
was reproved by his pastor, he replied: "My dear sir, 
my principles are perfectly sound, though I admit I pay 
no regard to them in my life !" Our brethren are very 
earnest in defending " a true and literal version as of Di- 
vine appointment." But as to their practice, that is left 
to take care of itself; and " Divine appointment" is 
permitted to " go and do likewise !" We have shown by 
numerous extracts from their own writings, that whilst 
constantly employing a patchwork paraphrase, they pro- 
* M'Master's Apology. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 63 

fess to sing " inspired songs only," " the worn of God," 
&c* Thus they speak of their Psalmody ! 

3. It is further objected, that on the original title page, 
" Rouse's paraphrase" is represented as " more agreeable 
to the original text than any heretofore ;, f But this is not 
denied. Suppose it to be "more agreeable" to the ori- 
ginal than " Sternhold and Hopkins " — does that prove 
it to be " a literal and faithful version ?" Is it therefore 
" the word of God in the same sense with the prose of 
our Bibles ?" 

4. It is further objected, that the same original title- 
page represents " House's paraphrase" as " translated 
and diligently compared with the original text," &c. *j" 
But what does this prove ? In order to make a correct 
paraphrase it is of course indispensable to consult 1 the 
original text. And as to the use of the term " translated," 
it proves nothing, especially nothing against the evidence 
of facts adduced in former letters. Dr. Watts applies 
the very same term to his u paraphrase." And the 
original title of Sternhold and Hopkins' contains the 
clause, " conferred with the Ebrue." But who is now 
so foolish as to call that system " a true and literal 
version," or indeed a version at all ? The chosen title 
used by the Scottish General Assembly is "paraphrase." 
Still we do not deny that in a part of the Psalms, House's 
is a version which may be properly termed " correct and 
faithful ; " but if facts do not deceive, there can be as 
little doubt that as a system it is not u a literal and 
faithful version," but in numerous instances, as we have 
proved, is a paraphrase or explanation. The Psalmody 
of the Presbyterian church, as arranged by her commit- 
tees, is in many of the Psalms, as correct a version as 
Bouse. Yet the whole is denounced as " the effusions 
of fallible men," while " the human additions" and "im- 
provements" of Bouse are called " theicord of God!" 

* " If the book of Psalms in the prose translation, deserves to be 
regarded as the icord of God, * * * the metrical version possesses 
substantially the same character.'' Pressly on Psalmody, p. 117. 

■J- Preacher, December 13th, 1844. 



64 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

5. It is objected that the Scottish commissioners, Ruth- 
erford and Gillespie, in writing to their General Assem- 
bly say — " It [Rouse] will be found as near the original 
as any paraphrase in metre can readily be." * We think 
so too. It would really be a difficult task to construct a 
paraphrase in metre, (observe, a paraphrase, not a trans- 
lation,) much, if at all more near the original than this of 
Rouse. But does that prove the paraphrase to be " a 
literal and faithful version," or translation of the original ? 

6. It may be alleged, that vigorous efforts are now 
being made to improve the " paraphrase of Rouse," so 
as to make it "a literal version." We have before us 
two of these " improved versions," but compared with 
Bouse, they make but small pretensions to be an " inspired 
Psalmody." We give one or two illustrations. Thus in 
Psalm 147 : 10 — " He delighteth not in the strength of 
the horse ; he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man." 

ROUSE. IMPROVED VERSION. 

His pleasure not in horse's Not in the fleetness, or the might 
strength, Of horse or man, can God delight. 

Nor in man's legs doth lie. 

So also in Psalm 136 : 15 — "But overthrew Pharaoh 
and his host in the Red Sea." 

ROUSE. IMPROVED VERSION. 

But overwhelmed and lost But overwhelmed and lost 

Was proud King Pharaoh, Was Pharaoh, that proud king, 

With all his mighty host With all his mighty host 

And chariots also. Which he did with him bring. 

Both these versions " lay aside as useless" the inspired 
clause "in the Red Sea!" Do these brethren imagine 
" they write better than David ! " Again, Psalm 122 : 
1 — " I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into 
the house of the Lord." 

ROUSE. IMPROVED VERSION. 

I joy'd when to the house of I was glad to hear them say, 

God, On the holy Sabbath day, 

Go up, they said to me. Let us now attend the courts 

Jerusalem, within thy gates Where the Holy One resorts. 

Our feet shall standing be. We within thy gates will stand, 

Salem, 'pride of all the land. 

% Preacher, Docember 13, 1844. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 65 

Where these brethren learned that the Psalmist's glad- 
ness was " on the holy Sabbath day/' more than any other 
day, they do not inform us. Certainly the Psalm does 
not say so. They seem to have thought they could 
" improve upon David !" Yet they tell us, in their Pre- 
face : " The principle which the Associate Reformed 
church holds, is, ' & faithful translation or version of the 
book of Psalms I' " And the foregoing are a few out of 
many scores of examples of this u faithful translation !" 
These are not very promising attempts to obtain a more 
" true and literal version " than Rouse. Indeed, if House 
was " framed upon the principle of a translation of the 
original as close as the laws of versification will allow"* 
as Dr. Pressly assures us, it is of course vain to expect 
any more closely literal system, unless the original au- 
thors were totally unqualified for their work, which Dr. 
P. will not venture to affirm. 

And now, what are the fair and legitimate conclusions 
from this investigation ? 

1. We have shown, by undeniable facts, that these 
brethren have taken away from " the songs of inspira- 
tion, in which God teaches his church how to praise "f 
an amount of matter equal to forty -five songs of the size 
of Psalm 117, and that they have added to these songs 
"human composition" to the same amount. Of course 
their pretensions to " a correct and faithful version " of 
the whole book, are a nullity. 

2. We have proved that the earliest specimens of 
Psalmody in metre, as used by our Scottish forefathers, 
sung by their martyrs and reformers, were not formed 
upon the literal principle, but were much more nearly 
after the style and monner of the Presbyterian system, 
only much more paraphrastic. 

3. We have proved that from the period of the estab- 
lishment of the Reformation down to the Westminster 
Assembly, that noble Apostolic church employed in pub- 



6* 



* Address, December, 1836. 
f Pressly on Psalmody, p. 118, 



66 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

lie and private worship a versification of the Psalms 
(Sternhold and Hopkins') which utterly condemns and 
repudiates the principle of " a literal and faithful version 
of the whole book," being in many particulars more like 
the Presbyterian Psalmody than " a literal version." 

4. We have demonstrated by the record itself, that 
the Psalmody employed in the Presbyterian churches of 
Scotland (Rouse's paraphrase) ever since the Westmin- 
ster Assembly, is widely different from a " literal and 
faithful version or translation of the whole book of 
Psalms f so that the authority and example of those 
venerable churches is with the Presbyterians, rather 
than with these brethren. And in view of such facts, 
their denunciations of terrible judgments on the sin of 
singing " human composures," &c, while they habitu- 
ally do the same wicked thing, will be more likely to 
produce a smile than conviction — at least with all intel- 
ligent Presbyterians. 

5. It has been demonstrated that the system of Psal- 
mody called " Rouse's version," is "the word of God" 
in a sense similar to that in which a piece of cloth inter- 
woven with more than five hundred patches of cotton is 
the pure silk fabric ! Of course, the lofty claims which 
are made in its favor appear rather small. And if, as 
we are assured, the whole book of Psalms is of u Divine 
appointment," then these brethren use u a human Psal- 
mody!" Yet they tell us, "our plea is for a true ver- 
sion of the book of Psalms as of Divine authority."* 
" We sing inspired songs only ." 

And what shall we say of the rash assertion, that, 
"like the prose translation of the whole Bible," Rouse 
" is to be regarded as the word of God ?" .If in the 
Psalms, or in any other book of the Holy Scriptures, 
the same amount of such interpolation and comments 
were found, the whole Protestant world would condemn 
the translation and call imperatively for a new one. It 
would not be tolerated at all as " the Bible without note 

* Apology, p. vi. 



WHAT SONGS ARE INSPIRED. 67 

or comment. " And yet we are assured, "The question 
is simply this — shall we use the Psalms and hymns and 
spiritual songs tchich God has given in his word ? Or 
shall we use such as have been prepared by uninspired 



men 



?"* 



Again. " The substitution or use * * * * of imita- 
tions and paraphrases, is a corruption of the worship of 
God l"f Yet these brethren constantly use " Rouse's 
Paraphrase, or Explanation of the Psalms I" As to the 
Collections of Hymns employed by nearly all the Scot- 
tish churches, Presbyterians may well rejoice to be de- 
nounced in company with such men as Drs. Chalmers, 
Candlish, Duff, and a host of others, in like manner 
" corrupters of the worship of God !" But we shall 
speak more fully on this point in another Letter. 

* Preacher, February 23, 1844. 

f Basis of Union submitted by the Associate or Seceder church to 
the Associate Reformed church. 



68 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 



LETTER VI. 

SOURCES WHENCE SONGS OF PRAISE ARE TO BE DERIVED — PRESBY- 
TERIANS RECEIVE ALL SCRIPTURE AS OF USE TO DIRECT US IN 
PRAISE AS WELL AS IN PRAYER — OPPOSITE DOCTRINE, THE PSALMS 

EXCLUSIVELY — ALL BESIDES CORRUPTION OF DIVINE WORSHIP 

SCOTTISH CHURCHES GENERALLY USE OTHER SONGS BESIDES THE 
PSALMS — EXAMPLES, FREE AND ESTABLISHED CHURCHES — UNITED 

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, &C. OUR BRETHREN REJECT ALL INSPIRED 

MATTER FOR SONG, EXCEPT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PSALMS 

THEIR THEORY NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EXAMPLES OF OLD AND 
NEW TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND INSPIRED MEN, ISATAH, BEZE- 
KIAH, &C. 

My Dear Sir : — We come next to examine the sources 
whence, according to these brethren, the church should 
derive all her songs of praise. 

The doctrine of the Presbyterian church is this : As 
we are taught in the Westminster Catechism that " the 
whole word of God is of use to direct us in prayer/ 7 so 
we maintain it to be of "use to direct us" in praise. 
And this view seems the more probable, because in every 
other department of public and private worship, none but 
the Jews restrict themselves to the Old Testament. In- 
deed the person who should seriously advise these breth- 
ren to limit all other Divine worship to the forms and 
phraseology of the Jewish Scriptures, would only expose 
himself to their contempt ! 

On the other hand, the doctrine taught by these 
brethren is as follows : " It is the will of God that the 
sacred songs contained in the book of Psalms be sung 
in his praise to the end of the world; and we have no 
authority to use any other." Or as otherwise expressed : 
"It would appear to be the Divine will that this (book 
of Psalms) should be used to the exclusion of all others."* 
What these brethren include in the terms " sacred songs 
of the book of Psalms," we learn by their common 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 87. 



TRUE SOURCES OF INSPIRED SONG. 69 

usages, viz. such paraphrastic and explanatory versifica- 
tions as those of Rouse. In their books intended for 
general circulation — in their arguments with other de- 
nominations, and in their formal " Testimony " against the 
errors of their brethren, "it is for the use of the Psalms 
in a faithful translation they testify."* But when we 
examine their Psalmody, we are at no loss to decide how 
far "a correct and faithful translation" governs their 
practice. It has been abundantly shown in previous Let- 
ters, that they sing "a paraphrase," a large mixture of 
"human composition" with the Divine thought and 
phraseology ; often inverting the order and arrangement 
of "God's Psalm book!" 

But the question of the exclusive use of the book of 
Psalms is with these brethren no mere theory in other as- 
pects — but one of very great practical importance. " Main- 
taining as we do," they say, "the exclusive use of that 
compilation of sacred songs which God has prepared and 
given to his church, we are under the necessity of holding 
those who depart from this appointment, as seriously cor- 
rupting one of the most interesting and important ordi- 
nances of God."f And to enforce this charge of corrup- 
tion, the same writer affirms, that " compared with the 
prose version of our Bibles," House's versification "is 
formed on the principle of a literal translation !" Of 
course he holds that he and his brethren sing " a faithful 
and literal translation," which equally with the prose, is 
the -word of God /£ 

But where do they find Divine authority for restrict- 
ing the praises of the church under the New Testament 
to the "book of Psalms?" In solving this question we 
ask attention to several particulars : 

1. The question as stated in the extracts given above, 
is not the question of "the exclusive use of an inspired 
Psalmody." Even if Rouse were all that some profess 

* Testimony of the United Presbyterian church, p. 46. 
t Preacher, by Dr. Kerr, June 9, 1847. 

J " No argument is needed to prove that Rouse's version is the word 
of God." — JDodd's Reply. 



70 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

to believe it, viz. " the very word of God," (a mon- 
strous assertion,) still the inquiry returns — "are there 
no inspired Psalms, hymns and songs in other parts of 
the Bible ?" Certainly there are. Well, then, suppose 
that these other songs not found in the book of Psalms, 
were paraphrased in metre as closely to the original as 
Rouse, would they from that moment cease to be in- 
spired songs? Do they then become " corruptions of 
worship " to all that use them in praise ? So teaches the 
theory of our brethren. Thus instead of testifying, as 
they profess, "for the use of an inspired Psalinody,"* 
they are found testifying against a large number of sa- 
cred songs, the productions of the Holy Spirit ! 

Thus their theory condemns the use of all " inspired 
compositions," which are not among the one hundred and 
fifty Psalms. As for example the sixty-seven " transla- 
tions and paraphrases," employed by the Free and Estab- 
lished churches of Scotland. These extend from Genesis 
to Revelation; and many, perhaps all of them, are as 
close to the Scripture text as many parts of Rouse's par- 
aphrases. Yet while Rouse is vehemently defended as 
"inspired Psalmody," these other "songs composed in 
heaven" are mere "corruptions of worship !" 

The same line of argument applies to the "hymn 
book of the United Presbyterian church of Scotland." 
It contains four hundred and ninety paraphrases of por- 
tions of Scripture referred to in the titles of the several 
hymns, most of which Scriptures are found outside of the 
Psalms. Many of these are as close paraphrases of Holy 
Writ as large portions of Rouse. Yet all are " corrup- 
tions." It is a mistake, therefore, in these brethren to 
say : " The principle of which we are the advocate, is 
the songs of inspiration. "f Neither is it " the great 
question" as they affirm, " whether we have authority to 
use any other than the songs of inspiration." It is 
demonstrated by your own statements as given above, 

* Testimony of United Presbyterian church, p. 46. 
-J- Preacher, by Dr. Pressly, February 23, 1844, 



TRUE SOURCES OF INSPIRED SONG. 71 

that you testify against all the inspired songs of the Bi- 
ble, except one hundred and fifty Psalms. " These 
Divine songs," this " collection of Psalms," &c, we 
are told, " constitute an inspired system of Psalmody."* 
On this exclusive theory, all inspired songs not contained 
in that " collection," are " corruptions " of Divine wor- 
ship, if used for purposes of praise ! Against all such 
they testify. Thus a large number of " the songs of in- 
spiration " are " laid aside as useless." 

2. Our second remark is this : That these exclusive 
principles are quite unseemly and unnatural among those 
who strenuously maintain the Divine origin of the whole 
Bible. It is well known to every student of the Scrip- 
tures, that large portions of the prophecies, Job, Pro- 
verbs, Solomon's Song, and the Lamentations, (to say 
nothing of the songs of the New Testament,) are written 
in the strains of the most sublime and beautiful poetry. 
Yet all this devotional and inspired matter, though often 
the very Psalms and songs in which inspired men praised 
God, and called upon the church to praise him, is utterly 
discarded by the exclusive doctrine. For example, Isaiah, 
chapter 5 : "Now will I sing to my well beloved a song 
of my beloved," &c. The beloved was of course the 
only true God, and this song was an act of praise to 
him. Again, chapter 12 : "In that day thou shalt say, 
Lord I will praise thee ; * * * the Lord Jehovah is 
my strength and my song, and he is become my salva- 
tion," &c. " The structure of this Psalm," says Dr. J. A. 
Alexander, "is very regular." — Commentary, p. 237. 

The character of Isaiah as the penman of the Holy 
Ghost, stands among the very highest of the writers 
of the Scriptures. His very name means "the salvation 
of Jehovah," and his illustrious predictions of the birth, 
character, mission, miracles, sufferings, death, burial 
and final glory of the Messiah, have won him the 
distinction, "the Evangelical Prophet." His descrip- 
tions of the establishment, increase and perfection of 
* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 142. 



72 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

Christ's kingdom on earth, by the effusions of the Holy 
Spirit, have made his prophecies rather a fifth gospel 
than a series of predictions, a history rather than a vis- 
ion of the future. The transcendent excellencies of 
his compositions, at once forcible, elevated, majestic, sub- 
lime and highly ornamented, have entitled them justly 
to the praise of being " the most elegant part of the 
Old Testament writings ; M and won to himself the distinc- 
tion of being " the Prince of the Old Testament Pro- 
phets." Of this 12th chapter, Home * says : " This 
hymn seems by its whole tenor, as well as by many of 
its expressions, much better calculated for the use of the 
Christian than for the Jewish church, * * and the Jews 
themselves seem to have applied it to the times of the 
Messiah." Moreover, this highly evangelical Psalm, 
says Dr. Alexander, "the prophet puts into the mouth of 
Israel," or the church. She is instructed to sing this 
song, though David and Asaph had been in their graves 
not far from three hundred years ; nor does it belong to 
their system of Psalmody. Of course Isaiah did not 
adopt the theory which limits the church to " David and 
Asaph," and two or three others. 

Let it be observed, too, that all our best commentators, 
Henry, Scott, and others, interpret this song of the times 
of the Messiah, (" in that day, the gospel day, thou shalt 
say,") and its instructions as eminently applicable to the 
Christian dispensation. Can it then be a "corruption of 
worship" to sing such a Divine song as this 12th chapter 
of Isaiah! 

The argument is still more striking in regard to chap- 
ter 26. "In that day shall this song be sung" &c. 
Dr. Alexander says, "It is not at all improbable that 
this song was actually used in praise, as it is written in 
the form and manner of the Psalms." And he calls it 
" a song to be sung by Israel," or the church. Henry 
adds — " In that day, i. e., the gospel day, which the day 
of the victories and enlargement of the Old Testament 

* Introduction, vol. 4, p. 160. 



TRUE SOURCES OF INSPIRED SOXG. 73 

church was typical of. * * * The land of Judah was a 
figure of the gospel church/' &c. Scott expounds to the 
same effect. The church, therefore, is only fulfilling the 
predictions of the infallible Word, when she sings such 
songs as these. She only assumes the character in which 
she is arrayed by "the sure word of prophecy." 

3. It would be easy to adduce scores of similar evan- 
gelical Psalms from Isaiah and other prophets, but we 
cannot eniarge. Before dismissing the subject, however, 
we must refer to the song of Hezekiah, Isaiah 38 : 9-20. 
" That Hezekiah should compose a Psalm," remarks Dr. 
Alexander, "is not strange. * * It would be far more 
sfrange if one so much like David in character and spirit- 
had not followed his example." " The inspiration and 
canonical authority of this production are clear from its 
incorporation by Isaiah among his prophecies." * It is 
Hezekiah's Psalm of thanksgiving after recovery from 
dangerous illness. David and the other Psalmists of his 
day had been dead for three hundred years; but "by 
David's instrumentality," we are told, " the church was 
furnished with a choice variety of Psalms, &c. adapted to 
the diversified circumstances of the private believer, and 
of the church of God."f What, then, was the obvious duty 
of Hezekiah ? Surely as "a private believer" to adopt 
and sing one of " that collection of sacred songs which 
were to be used to the exclusion of all others." J>ut 
this he did not do. Neglecting the " choice variety" 
furnished by " the sweet Psalmist of Israel," he writes a 
Pzalmforhisownv.se. And this song, be it observed, 
has no place in the "book of Psalms." 

But Hezekiah did much more than this. In the 20th 
verse of this same chapter, he says — " The Lord was 
ready to save me, therefore we will sing my songs to the 
stringed instruments all the days of my life in the Jiouse 
of the Lord." " The phrase ( we will sing/ " remarks 
Dr. Alexander, " refers to the multitude who might be 

* Commentary on Isaiah 38. 
f Pressly on Psalmody, p. 79. 



74 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

expected to join in his public thanksgiving, not only at 
first, but in after ages" " The general sense/ ' he adds, 
"is that of public and perpetual praise ; " and that "in 
the house of the Lord " — or as part of the stated public 
service of the church. How unseemly and unnatural, 
then, for our brethren, who, we are glad to say it, are 
generally sound on the question of inspiration, to set 
themselves in hostility to such " inspired songs " as these 
— songs whose public and private use in the praise of 
God is sanctioned by the very " Prince of the Prophets/' 
We have presented several specimens taken from a great 
number of Divine songs. They were either written by 
Isaiah or received his sanction — were designed for the use 
of the church, and "God's worshiping people under both 
the old and the new dispensation were directed to sing 
them/' * Yet all are excluded by these brethren ! How 
evident is it, therefore, that their principle is not that of 
an " inspired Psalmody." By their own showing, they 
select from the inspired volume some Psalms, and reject 
others — they testify in favor of a certain number of in- 
spired songs, and testify against a far greater number 
equally Divine, " equally composed in heaven ! " They 
sing a part — others, they venture " to lay aside as use- 
less." 

But perhaps it will be replied, that they have " Divine 
appointment " of the " book of Psalms " to be used ex- 
clusively in New Testament worship ; but no such " ap- 
pointment" for any others, whether inspired or unin- 
spired. This assertion, in both its parts, we propose to 
examine in our future Letters ; when we hope to make 
it more fully appear that no such Divine warrant exists 
for the exclusive use of the book of Psalms. 

* Testimony of the United Presbyterian Church, p. 44. 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 75 



LETTER VII. 

QUESTION OF " DIVINE APPOINTMENT" OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS 
LUSIVELY FOR PRAISE — EXAMINATION OF THE USUAL argu- 
ments — 2 ciiron. 29:30 no divine warrant — peculiar char- 
acter OF THE MATTER OF THE PSALMS THEIR TITLES THEIR 

ORIGINAL USE SHOWN TO BE FALLACIOUS AS PROOFS OF PERPETUAL 
AND UNCHANGEABLE DESIGNATION FOR EXCLUSIVE PRAISE IN THE 
CIIERCH — THE TITLE OF " SOLOMON'S SONG" PRESUMPTIVE PROOF 
THAT IT SHOULD BE USED FOR PUBLIC PRAISE. 

M y Dear Sir : — ^Ye ask for a Divine warrant, a "thus 
saith the Lord," either expressed or implied, by which the 
exclusive doctrine can be sustained. And here we feel it 
to be a privilege to say that with such writers as the late 
Dr. M' Master, the controversy is greatly narrowed. He 
candidly acknowledges " that the use of a faithful version 
of such songs as Isaiah 26 : 1-9 and Revelation 5 : 9-13 
would not corrupt the worship of God."* Very different 
is the doctrine held by the authors quoted at the begin- 
ning of the last Letter. 

Admitting for argument's sake, that in " Rouse's para- 
phrase " they sing "'the Psalms which God has given," 
without admixture of "human composition," and with- 
out omission or error — the question now is, " where is the 
Scriptural authority for restricting the church under her 
present dispensation to the book of Psalms ?" 

The nearest approach to such a Divine appointment, 
so far as we have observed, is found in 2 Chronicles 29 : 
30. " Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded 
the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words 
of David, and of Asaph the seer."f This occurred in the 
great reformation under that pious sovereign. It clearly 
establishes a Divine warrant to sing the sacred songs 
composed by David and Asaph in the temple service, and 
by the Jewish church. But this direction to the Levites 

* Apology, p. 96. 

f This passage is often quoted in proof by these brethren. 



T6 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

does not prove the positions assumed by these brethren 
for several reasons : 

1. It proves too much, because it equally establishes 
instrumental music in the church of the present period. 
In verse 25 we read : " Hezekiah set the Levites in the 
house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with 
harps, according to the commandment of David, and of 
Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet." Here, 
in the same connection, are directions equally explicit for 
the use of choirs and various instruments in praising 
God ! It is obvious, therefore, that every inspired direc- 
tion for the temple service is not necessarily a command 
binding upon the church of the new dispensation. Nor 
was this appointment of a magnificent choir of several 
thousand persons and numerous musical instruments, a 
mere temporary arrangement for that special reformation. 
We find that two hundred years later, at the foundation 
of the second temple under Ezra, and in the days of the 
prophets Haggai and Zechariah, "they set the priests with 
trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cym- 
bals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David 
king of Israel"* The obligation from such texts as 
these, to sing exclusively with David and Asaph their 
literal Psalms, is no more express than to copy their choir 
and introduce their trumpets, cymbals, &c. And to make 
this reasoning still more conclusive, in 2 Chronicles 7 : 6, 
these harps, trumpets, cymbals, &c, are called, "instru- 
ments of music of the Lord, which David the king had 
made to praise the Lord!" " Instruments of mu- 
sic or the Lord I" The United Presbyterian " Tes- 
timony " argues that because the Psalms are called 
"songs of the Lord," they must be of perpetual obliga- 
tion in praise, just as we read of " the table of the 
Lord," "the day of the Lord," which are said to imply 
Divine authority and appointment.f But the argument 

* Ezra 3 : 10. 

f Testimony, p. 44. In 1 Chronicles 16 : 42, these trumpets, cym- 
bals, harps, etc., are called ''musical instruments of God." Of course 
they are of perpetual appointment in Divine worship ! 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 77 

is quite as strong from the phrase, "instruments of the 
Lord/' to prove the perpetual obligation of harps, trum- 
pets, &c. Thus we arrive, with the friends of the 
"Testimony/ 1 at this conclusion, viz. "that these direc- 
tions and examples are still in force, as there is no New 
Testament intimation to the contrary."* If Christ and 
his apostles ever revoked this appointment of "the in- 
struments of the Lord," let it be shown. And to render 
the difficulty still more embarrassing, one of the favorite 
proof texts quoted in the " Testimony " is Psalm 81 : 2, 
which while it enjoins to "take a Psalm," immediately 
adds : " Bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with 
the psaltery ! Nor need we inform these testifying 
brethren where to find such inspired directions as these : 
" Praise the Lord with the sound of a trumpet ; praise 
him with with the psaltery and harp ; praise him with 
the timbrel and dance ; praise him with stringed instru- 
ments and organs." Psalm 150. If "the Psalm" is 
made perpetual and exclusive by the " ordinance of Da- 
vid," why not "the instruments of the Lord" made per- 
petual by the same " ordinance ?" The argument from 2 
Chronicles 29 : 30, thus proves too much, and therefore 
proves nothing to the point. We are far from desiring 
to exclude the book of Psalms from the devotions of the 
church. But the acts of Hezekiah are not the proofs on 
which we rely to designate the proper position of that 
inspired and very precious book in the worship of God. 
But we shall speak of this more fully in a future Letter. 
2. The argument from 2 Chronicles 29 : 80 in favor 
of the doctrine of our brethren, fails in another point of 
view. Thirteen years later, Hezekiah himself composed 
a Psalm for the "house of the Lord," and gave direc- 
tions that his "songs" should be sung in the temple 
service all the days of his life. This was shown in our 
last Letter. How then could that pious prince have view- 
ed "the words of David and Asaph" as the exclusive 
Psalmody of the church ? He evidently did not so un- 

* Testimony, p. 44. 

7* 



78 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

derstand his own command as recorded 2 Chronicles 29 : 
oO. Of the one hundred and fifty pieces which are said 
to have constituted the Psalmody of the Jewish church, 
David wrote a little over seventy, and Asaph not over 
twelve, probably only ten. The others are variously 
ascribed to Heman, Jeduthun, Solomon, Moses and 
other authors. It is with surprise, therefore, we find in 
the United Presbyterian " Testimony" the following in 
relation to the book of Psalms : "The title given to David 
their penman, (' sweet Psalmist of Israel/) indicates that 
they should be used," &c. Why David was the penman 
of not more than half of those sacred songs ! Quite a 
number of them are referred, by the most eminent au- 
thorities, to periods long after David was in his grave ; 
and some of these songs to the times during and subse- 
quent to the seventy years' captivity ! How, then, could 
Hezekiah regard " the words of David and Asaph " as the 
exclusive Psalmody of the church ? Even if " David 
and Asaph" were the authors of the whole "book of 
Psalms," Hezekiah' s example is against, rather than in 
favor of the exclusive doctrine. 

3. We object to the argument derived from 2 Chroni- 
cles 29 : 30, because it is inconsistent with 2 Chronicles 
35 : 25 — "And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all 
the singing-men and the singing-women spake of Josiah in 
their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordi- 
nance in Israel : and, behold, they are written in the 
Lamentations." We regard this passage as quite as good 
authority for singing the book of " Lamentations " in Di- 
vine worship as the acts of Hezekiah for the perpetual 
and exclusive use of "the words of David and Asaph !" 
Yet this " ordinance in Israel " (or the church) was made 
under the eye and approval of Jeremiah, more than one 
hundred years after the acts of Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 
29. So evident is it that the church of that period did 
not- receive " the words of David and Asaph " as her ex- 
clusive Psalmody. 

For such reasons as these we are constrained to regard 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 79 

these acts of Hezekiah as no Divine warrant for the 
"book of Psalms" as the system of praise to be used in 
the church of our day ; much less as of exclusive author- 
ity for that purpose. 

But it is further argued that " the peculiar character 
of their matter * * * indicates the particular end 
for which these sacred songs were intended."* Now we 
cordially admit that in this book the " glory of Jehovah 
is celebrated in the sublimest strains of Eastern poetry/' 
&c. But is there no such suitable matter in the other 
parts of the Scriptures ? Are all the " Psalms, hymns 
and spiritual songs " composed by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and 
the others, and in the whole of the New Testament, "un- 
fit to be sung V Was not much of this suitable matter 
composed in the form of Psalms and hymns and used by 
inspired men, who also commanded the church " to sing 
these new songs?" For proof of these points see our 
previous Letter. 

But whilst every pious heart will cordially respond to 
much that is said in praise of the book of Psalms, noth- 
ing is easier than to prove that large portions of many 
of these songs are quite as prosaic as the historical parts 
of Isaiah and the other prophets, and in that view, at 
least, quite as "unfit to be sung." For example, see 
parts of Psalms 78, 105, 106, &c. What more unlike 
"the sublimest strains of Eastern poetry" than the fol- 
lowing specimens : 

He brought among them swarms of flies, 
Which did them sore annoy : 
And divers kinds of filthy frogs 
He sent them to destroy. 

His word all sorts of flies and lice 
In all their borders brings . 

Do to them as to Midian; 
Jabin and Kison strand: 
And Sisra, which at Endor fell 
As dung to fat the land. 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 72. 



80 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

My wounds do isimk and are corrupt; 
My folly makes it so. 

Moab s my washing pot ; my shoe 
111 over Edom throw. 

"Whoso belly with thy treasure hid 
Thou fill'st — they children have 
• In plenty. Of their goods the rest 

They to their children leave. 

It was no doubt in view of such stanzas as the fore- 
going, that Prof. Beveridge, of Xenia, wrote as follows : 
" A few expressions are employed which can scarcely be 
considered as suitable in dignity either to the ordinance 
or the matter of praise; such as 'I'm like a broken 
pot/ 'as fat as grease they be/ ( which admiration breed/ 
6 the hairy scalp/ &c. This language Dr. Beveridge re- 
ported and published as the chairman of a committee of 
the Associate. Synod. "* 

It would be easy to collect many parallel specimens. 
We are not now complaining of the verse of Bouse, 
which some have called "discord and jargon." Neither 
have we the slightest objection to these and hundreds of 
similar passages as they stand in God's inspired icord. 
The only question now before us relates to the most "'suit- 
able matter " for praise. And in view of such passages 
it is obvious that we cannot speak of many parts of these 
Divine songs in such terms as sublime strains of Eastern 
poetry. The preacher rises in the sacred desk, and com- 
mences to read : 

I like an owl in desert am, 
That nightly there doth moan. 

When they me saw, they from me fled, 
Ev'n so I am forgot. 
As men are out of mind when dead ; 
I'm like a broken pot. 

That in the blood of enemies 
Thy foot imbrue '1 may be ; 
And of thy dogs dipped in the same 
The tongues thou mayest see. 

* Evangelical Repository, April, 1851. 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 81 

The spearman's host, the multitude 

Of bulls which fiercely look, 

Those calves which people forth have sent, 

Lord our God rebuke. 

These can scarcely be called sublime strains of poetry. 
Whatever may have been the poetical forms of the He- 
•brew (which are now lost) we have no " Divine warrant/' 
under any pretext, to speak of these and similar passages, 
as any other than they really are. They were composed 
for a people and for times of great simplicity of manners. 
But in the progress of refinement under the gospel, it is 
no more a reproach to the Psalms to- say that such 
passages are not as suitable for public song as many 
parts of the other Scriptures, than it is a reproach to 
the Holy Spirit to say that Deut. 23 : 1, though read 
publicly to the Jews, is not the most suitable part of "all 
Scripture which is profitable for instruction" to be read 
from the pulpit ! Nothing would be easier than to name 
other texts which these brethren themselves studiously 
avoid, though "given by inspiration" — and thus they 
are guilty of the very sin which they charge upon Dr. 
Watts, viz. " laying aside as useless parts of God's 
word ! " * They lay aside from being publicly read — 
we lay aside from purposes of praise. Which is the 
greater crime, good sense can determine. 

But we are also referred to " the titles which the Holy 
Spirit has employed to designate these Divine hymns," 
and which, we are told, "indicate the particular use for 
which they were intended." " The Holy Spirit appro- 
priates to this collection of sacred songs the title, ( the book 
of Psalms/ and by this title they are repeatedly referred 
to in the New Testament." " The word ' Psalm ' is of 
Greek derivation, and comes from a word which signifies 
to sing. Psalms, then, are songs which are to be sung." f 

It is not denied, that for the most part, the Psalms 
were given to the Jews to be used in their worship, and 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 112. 
f Pressly, p. 73. 



82 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

were therefore called Tehillim, Praises. But does it ne- 
cessarily follow, that as a system of Psalmody they are 
divinely required to be sung under the present dispensa- 
tion, in every thought, sentiment and expression ? No 
more than "all Scripture given by inspiration of God " 
is binding to be read in public worship. Besides, these 
brethren themselves " lay aside as useless " the 20th 
verse of the 72d Psalm, most of the inspired titles, &c, 
as already shown. Again, if the general title of the 
book is of any avail in this argument, we must go to the 
original Hebrew, There we find that instead of being 
called "book of Psalins," the title is "book of Praises." 
Tehillim, the Hebrew plural of Tehillah, is not the 
word usually rendered Psalms. It is the separate title of 
but one Psalm (145th) in the whole book, and that in 
the singular. So far as we have observed, it is never 
in any other connection, translated by the Septuagint 
Psalmos, Psalm, but generally by a word meaning praise, 
or praises. Sepher Tehillim, or rather " Tehilliin," is the 
Hebrew title, and the exact rendering is "book of 
Praises," * not "book of Psalms." 

We admit that the title Biblos Psalmon, " book of 
Psalms," in the Septuagint or Greek translation is cited 
in the New Testament. But we shall show presently that 
this fact does not necessarily give it Divine sanction. And 
the propriety of some more general title, such as " book 
of Praises," is obvious ) because several of these songs 
have the title " a Prayer * " such as the 17th, " Prayer of 
David," the 90th, " Prayer of Moses," &e. To show 
the exceedingly various character of these compositions, . 
learned men have classified them as follows : " Sixty -six 
are prayers, twentv-nine are songs of thanksgiving, thirty 
are Psalms of praise and adoration, forty are on general 
topics of instruction, ten are prophetical, and three are his- 
torical."*}* Such is the various character of these "Praises." 

* Home's Introduction, vol. 4, p. 115. 

f Dr. Scott says, ''The Hebrew name of this book is Tehillim or 
Praises." 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 83 

Thus it seems that of this collection of Prayers, 
Praises, Prophecies, History, Doctrine, &c, the only 
original and inspired title, is " book of Praises. " But 
are there no praises without Psalms and singing? What 
says the book itself? " Praise God with the sound of 
the trumpet ; praise him with the timbrel and dance" &c. 
Psalm 150. u And David danced before the Lord with 
all his might." 2 Samuel 6 : 14. Besides, is there no 
acceptable praise in prayer ; which forms so large a pro- 
portion of the book ? We do not commonly sing our 
prayers, though two of the constituent elements of prayer 
are " adoration and thanksgiving." So our Catechism 
teaches us in the " conclusion of the Lord's prayer," 
u that in our prayers we praise Him ; " and the same 
is true when the Psalms are read from the pulpit and in 
family worship. 

The general title, "book of Praises," does obviously 
include all these methods of praising God, and therefore 
contains no infallible indication of the particular use for 
which the Psalms were intended, especially no " Divine 
warrant " for their exclusive use in singing praise. 

But we are told that the Holy Spirit by quoting in 
the New Testament the Septuagint translation of the 
original title (Biblos Psalmon), " appropriates to this 
collection of songs the title "book of Psalms."* We 
concede that it is so quoted, but we deny the inference. 
All sound Biblical critics admit that the translation of 
the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint is very 
often grossly erroneous. It is also a settled point that 
" the inspired writers of the New Testament often make 
citations from the Septuagint, even when notoriously in 
error , provided the blunders were of such a nature as 
not to iceaken the special proofs for which the citations 
were made." f It would be easy to fill pages with quo- 
tations to establish these points. 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 73. 

f Home's Introduction, vol. 2, p. 386. Horne adds, w The Psalms 
and the Prophets were translated by men every way unequal to the 
task." He means in the Septuagint. 



84 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

What, then, was the case under consideration ? The 
inspired writers of the New Testament using the Greek 
language, merely wished to refer to the "book of Praises" 
by its general title. The error of the Septuagint in 
calling it " book of Psalms," could not in the least 
weaken the reference, or in any way affect it. According 
to their usual custom, therefore, they quoted it as they 
found it, sufficiently correct for their purpose. But 
the mere fact of quotation in this case, no more proves** 
that the Holy Spirit appropriates the Septuagint title, 
and thereby gives it Divine sanction, than scores of simi- 
lar citations by New Testament writers prove that the 
Holy Spirit approves the grossest blunders in the learned 
languages, and in fact adopts sheer nonsense. 

IN or is it of any weight in this discussion, that "the 
word Psalm is of Greek derivation, and signifies to sing." 
The truth is, that while in the New Testament it is some- 
times thus used, the original primary meaning conveys 
the idea of playing on an instrument. This, too, is the 
original meaning of the Hebrew verb zamar (from which 
comes mizmor, a Psalm), viz. " to touch, or strike the 
chords of an instrument, to play, Greek psallein ; and 
hence to sing, to chant, as accompanying an instrument."* 

The title " Psalm," therefore, proves too much for these 
brethren. As derived from the Old Testament worship 
it would sanction in our churches the use of instrumental 
music, for such is the uniform history of Psalmody 
under the ancient dispensation, especially in the public 
service of the church. The use of the title " Psalm," 
no more proves that all the Psalms are now to he sung 
literally in every sentiment and expression, than it 
proves that all are to be accompanied with stringed in- 
struments, organs, harps, cymbals, trumpets, &c, espe- 
cially since tke Psalmist himself equally exhorts to the 
use of all these methods of praise, Psalm 150 ; and Heze- 
kiah's precept and example include the use of these " in- 
struments of God." 

* Gesenius, Hebrew Lex., in verba. 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 85 

From these considerations we trust it will be evident 
how feeble is the argument from the original " titles" of 
the book of Psalms. And to give additional force to our 
reasoning, let it be observed that in Hebrew, one of the 
specific titles often used for particular Psalms, is Shir, 
a song. It is found some thirty times, and in the origi- 
nal seems to refer to the use of the voice. Hence we read 
of " the daughters of song/' and it is employed to denote 
the act of singing, as in 2 Chronicles 23 : 18. Now if 
the general title, "book of Psalms," proves that they 
were " intended to be sung," then by the same reason- 
ing the general title, Shir Hashirim, "the song of 
songs," proves that "Solomon's Song" is in all ages to be 
sung in public worship ! This result, we think, is legiti- 
mately reached by the logic of our brethren themselves. 
Here is an inspired song with one of the titles of the 
Psalms — more than this, it is " the song of songs," " the 
most excellent of songs ! " It is pronounced by its au- 
thor superior to all the Psalms which bear the same 
title, for it is " most excellent ! " Surely then it is, it 
must be " intended to be sung in the worship of God." 
In addition, " this is most evident from the peculiar cha- 
racter of its matter" * Dr. Scott, that eminently pious 
and judicious commentator, well remarks, "No other 
poem in the world so well describes the state of the 
believer's heart, and is so adapted to excite admiring, 
adoring, grateful love to God our Saviour, as this." The 
subjects of the whole book are Christ and his church, 
and well does it deserve the inspired title, "song of 
songs," or " the most excellent of songs." Why, then, 
we repeat, if the title-logic is worth anything, is it 
excluded from the Psalmody of these brethren ? 

And to enforce this conclusion, hear the celebrated 
Ealph Erskine, one of the original fathers and founders 
of the Associate or Seceder Presbytery in Scotland — 
" When the motion was made of turning all the Scripture 
songs into common metre, for the same use with 

* See Pressly on Psalmody, p. 73. 
8 



86 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

the Psalms of David, I was also urged to make a ver- 
sion of this song, &c."* Again he says, " This sacred 
book of Scripture (the Song of Solomon) contains the 
sweetest and noblest instances of the grace of Christ 
toward his church and people." And in stating and de- 
fending the nature of his previous paraphrase, he adds, 
" If more seem to be said upon any verse than is directly 
imported in it, I hope it will be reckoned no great fault, 
if what is said be deducible from it, or necessary for 
the further explication of it, and for adapting this para- 
phrase upon an Old Testament song to a New Testament 
dispensation"^ So obvious is it, that Ralph Erskine and 
his compeers never dreamed of " a Divine appointment 
of a fair and literal version" of the Psalms as of exclu- 
sive authority for all ages. In regard to these topics, 
Erskine held the principles of the Presbyterian church — 
and the views of his modern successors are recent 
" human discoveries." Thus evident is it that the Asso- 
ciate church of this country have turned aside from the 
good ct old paths" in which their fathers walked, in the 
purest and best days of Reformation ! 

But perhaps some one may reply that " the Song of 
Solomon" was never employed, so far as we know, in 
the temple worship. Very true, and therefore the 
proof is complete that the use of the title Shir, a song, 
though employed to designate about thirty of the Psalms, 
settles nothing in favor of their perpetual use as the 
matter of praise ; since the superlative form of the same 
title did not prove u the song of songs" to be the matter 
of praise, not even to the Jews. Of course Dr. Pressly's 
title argument falls to the ground. 

* He elsewhere says — " The first public recommendation was by the 
Associate Synod, anno 1747." Works, vol. 10, p. 425. 
f Works, vol. 10, p. 316. 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 87 



LETTER VIII. 

DISCUSSION CONTINUED — "DIVINE WARRANT" IN PATTl/s " PSALMS, 

HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS " EXAMINATION OF THE SEPTUA- 

GINT USE OF THESE TITLES THE FACT THAT THE PSALMS WERE 

ORIGINALLY GIVEN TO BE SUNG, DOES NOT PROVE THEM TO BE 

A PERPETUAL AND UNCHANGEABLE SYSTEM OF PRAISE VARIOUS 

UNSOUND ARGUMENTS EXPOSED. 

My Dear Sir: — In my last I commenced the in- 
quiry : Where do our brethren discover "a Divine war- 
rant" for restricting the praises of the church under her 
present dispensation, to the book of Psalms? Such a 
warrant is not found in the acts of Hezekiah (2 Chroni- 
cles 29 : 30), nor yet in the general title of the book 
itself, as we trust we have proved. It is granted, for the 
present argument, that they employ in their worship 
"the very Psalms which God has given," "the Psalms 
of inspiration," "the songs composed in heaven," (all 
which we utterly deny and have shown to be far other- 
wise.) But conceding this, the inquiry returns : Where 
is the "thus saith the Lord," which hath established in 
his church this one book of songs as her only, all-suffi- 
cient and perpetual Psalm book to the end of time ? 
This is now the question — and we proceed to examine a 
third argument on which our brethren seem greatly to 
rely. It assumes the form of an express command of the 
New Testament. 

In Colossians 3 : 16, Paul exhorts the church as fol- 
lows : " Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all 
wisdom • teaching and admonishing one another, in psalms, 
and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in 
your hearts to the Lord." (A parallel passage, is Ephe- 
sians 5 : 19.) It is true, indeed, that these texts have 
always been viewed as strongholds of the Presbyterian 
doctrine, viz. that it is the duty and privilege of the 



88 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

church to praise God not only with Psalms, but with any 
other "hymns and songs " found in the inspired writings. 
But our brethren have endeavored to turn this old Pres- 
byterian battery against us in the following method, 
which we will state as briefly as possible : "When Paul 
was addressing the Colossians," they argue, "he wrote 
in the Greek language, and the translation of the Old 
Testament then used generally in the Christian church 
was the Greek Septuagint. Hence when Paul enjoined 
the use of ' Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs/ he mere- 
ly quoted in Greek the Septuagint translation of several 
of the Hebrew titles of the Psalms, i. e., he wrote the 
Greek Psalmois, humnois, odais, instead of the Hebrew 
titles Mizmorim, TehiUim, Shirim, both sets of terms 
meaning Psalms, hymns and songs." Hence, they argue, 
Paul's injunction to sing "Psalms, hymns and spiritual 
songs," is equivalent to a command to sing the various 
Psalms of David which in Paul's Greek Bible bore these 
titles, being correct translations of the three Hebrew ti- 
tles, Mizmorim, Tehillim, Shirim* 

But this argument fails to produce conviction for sev- 
eral reasons : 

1. It is an error to assert, as these brethren do, that 
the three Hebrew titles, Mizmorim, Tehillim, Shirim, 
"are particularly used to designate these different com- 
positions," viz. "the sacred poems of the book of 
Psalms. "f Tehilldh, (the singular of Tehillim,) which 
they say means hymn, (Greek, hmnnos,) is the title of 
only one Psalm (145th), and is hot rendered by the Sep- 
tuagint humnos, but ainesis, that is, praise. Our English 
Bibles supply the word Psalm, and read it "Psalm of 
praise." The plural Tehillim, is never used for a title 
of a particular Psalm, but only as the general title of the 
whole book; and the Septuagint translates it not humnoi, 
hymns, but psalmoi, Psalms. This spoils the whole ar- 

* Pressly on Psalmody, (abridged) p. 39; Testimony of United 
Presbyterian church, p. 45. 
f Pressly on Psalmody. 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 89 

gument. If Paul used the Septuagint translation, he 
could not possibly have meant the term humnoi, hymns, 
to be a translation of TehtUim, because the Septuagint 
do not so translate Tehillim ; they translate it psalmoi, 
Psalms. It follows, therefore, that if the apostle in- 
tended to cite the Hebrew terms as rendered into Greek 
by the Septuagint, he must have exhorted the Colossians 
to sing u Psalms, and Psalms and spiritual songs " — for 
the Septuagint translation of both Mizmorim and Tehil- 
lim is Psalms. 

Again : So far is it from being correct to say that 
"the Hebrew terms for Psalms, hymns and songs are 
particularly used to designate the different compositions" 
of the book of Psalms, that there are five or six of these 
titles besides the three mentioned, all but one of which 
are used more particularly than Tehillah, one of them as 
much as twelve times. It is incorrect, therefore, to assert 
that these three terms are particularly used. 

2. The term humnos, hymn, is never used by the Sep- 
tuagint as a distinctive title of any Psalm. We read in 
the titles very often Psalm, Psalm of David, but never 
humnos, hymn of David. * It is not denied that the da- 
tive plural, humnois, is found in the title of Psalm 67, 
and others — but what does it mean? Does it mean 
hymns? Read the title of Psalm 67: "To the chief 
musician on neginoth, a Psalm of David." Here the 
Septuagint translate neginoth by humnois, hymns! And 
what is the meaning of neginoth? It signifies "stringed 
instruments to be played on by the fingers." This is the 
sort of hymns meant by the Septuagint. But worse 
still — in Psalm 4, the same Septuagint translate neginoth 
by psalmois, Psalms ! So that these ancient Jewish mu- 
sical instruments signify both Psalms and hymns ! Thus 
according to the Septuagint logic, Paul must have ex- 
horted the Colossians, (1) to teach and admonish one 

* In Psalm 72 : 20, the Septuagint use humnoi to express what 
our Bibles call " the prayers of David" — but the Hebrew is not Tehil- 
Urn, but another word meaning properly "prayers," not hymns. This 
is not even a seeming exception to our statement. 
8* 



90 LETTERS OX PSALMODY. 

another with Psalms, i. e., with neglnotli, or "stringed in- 
struments;" (2) with neginoth agoin, i. e., with " stringed 
instruments," or hymns ; and (3) with spiritual songs. 
And our brethren would persuade us that the apostle 
quoted these absurd Greek titles from the Septuagint, and 
gave them his inspired sanction I* Well might the very 
learned Home pronounce the Septuagint translation of 
the Psalms to be worthless for purposes of criticism. » 

3. As to the third of the titles supposed to have been 
cited by the apostle, viz. odais pneumatikois, "spiritual 
songs," it is sufficient to say that there is no such title in 
the Septuagint — of course Paul could not have quoted it. 
The term ode, a song, is one of the Septuagint titles, but 
that is not the same thing with u spiritual songs." 

But granting for the present, that when the apostle 
exhorted to the use of " Psalms, hymns and spiritual 
sougs," he intended to quote the psahnoi, humnoi, odai 
of the Septuagint — what does it prove ? Certainly not 
that he had exclusive reference to these titles in the book 
of Psalms. The two last terms, humnos and ode, are 
used by the Septuagint to designate other portions of the 
inspired writings ; and why may not Paul have referred 
to those other "hymns and songs" not embraced in the 
book of Psalms ? Thus in Isaiah 42 : 10 : " Sing unto 
the Lord a new song" (Septuagint, humnon.) Why may 
not Paul have had in his eye the sublime and beautiful 
address of Moses (Deuteronomy 32), delivered just be- 
fore his death, and in the previous chapter called ode by 
the Septuagint, not less than three times ? Thus chapter 
81 : 19 : " Now therefore write ye this song" &c. 
Why may not the apostle have had his eye upon such 
humnoi and odai, "hymns and songs" as these, as they 
are found outside of the book of Psalms ? If he had 
reference to such as these, then what becomes of the ar- 
gument of these brethren ? Paul's exhortation to sing 
"hymns and spiritual songs" becomes an inspired au- 

* " The Psalms (of the Septuagint) were translated by men every 
way unequal to the task." — Home's Introduction, vol. 2, p. 1GS. 



WHERE 13 THE DIVINE WARRANT. 91 

tliority for the Presbyterian doctrine of Psalmody. Nor 
can we doubt for a moment, that ours is the correct inter- 
pretation, since it alone shields the apostle from a need- 
less tautology or repetition, as though he designed to ex- 
hort the Colossians to sing " Psalms, Psalms and Psalms!" 
Indeed, it is not denied that the interpretation we oppose 
does involve this tautology. "These different terms, 
'Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs/ " " probably indi- 
cate sacred songs which are substantially the same; ;; 
"they are substantially of the same import."* In view 
of all these considerations, it is plain that this argument 
from the Septuagint titles is an utter failure. 

The argument from "the peculiar matter," and from 
"the titles" of the Psalms, having been reviewed, wo 
proceed to a third point : 

(iii.) " From the fact that God has given to his church a 
book of Psalms, it would appear to be the Divine will 
that this should be used to the exclusion of all others."*}* 

From the first part of this statement, no Presbyterian 
will dissent. We cordially maintain that the Psalms, 
which were gradually composed, were given to the Jews, 
the ancient visible church, by their glorious Author, as a 
very precious portion of the inspired records. J Nor can 
it be denied that many of these sacred songs were sung 
in the temple service by a magnificent choir of several 
thousand Levites, accompanied with matchless strains of 
instrumental music — such, probably, as the world never 
heard before or since. The composition of these songs 
having been completed, about three hundred years after 
the period of Hezekiah they were collected into a book, 
as a part of the sacred canon. But we have no reason to 
believe that the church, either then or for centuries pre- 
vious, was restricted to the precise songs now contained 
in the book of Psalms. On the contrary, the example 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 141. 
f Pressly, p. 87. 

J Their composition extended through many centuries, and they 
were collected and arranged by Ezra, as is supposed. 



92 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

of Hezekiah in preparing and ordering the singing of a 
song or songs, and of Jeremiah- in sanctioning the sing- 
ing of the Lamentations for Josiah, proves the very 
reverse. And when it is inferred from such premises, 
that the same exact system of songs, so many, no more 
and no less, must necessarily be the Psalmody of the 
Christian dispensation to the end of the world — there is 
a gap in the logic. There is no positive proof, not even 
strong presumptive evidence, which will justify such a 
conclusion. For much proof to the contrary, see our 
Letter VI. 

With the statements already made before our minds, 
we open the New Testament. Do we there discover no 
forms of public and private praise, except in the words 
of the book of Psalms ? Far otherwise. The writers of 
the New Testament quote these sacred songs not less 
than sixty times, but never in any instance do they cite a 
complete song of praise ; only in three or four instances 
do they introduce a brief extract as a part of their ex- 
pressions of praise, and in every such case they amend 
by additions of their own. Nor do they ever speak of 
the book as a system of Psalmody. The apostles and 
our Lord often mention the Psalms, the book of Psalms 
and David, without quoting them, but they are commonly 
referred to precisely like any other portions of the Old 
Testament Scriptures, as they doubtless would have re- 
ferred to "the Song of songs/ ' but not associated with 
singing at all. Thus when citing the 22d Psalm, on the 
subject of the crucifixion, the evangelist says : "That it 
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They 
parted my garments, and for my vesture they cast lots." 
See for similar examples, Matthew 13 : 35, 26 : 35; 
Luke 2 : 42, 24 : 44. In truth, if the Psalms had never 
been sung at all, the New Testament, in such quotations 
as these, could not have observed a more profound .silence 
on the subject of their "particular designation. " James 
indeed exhorts : " Is any merry, let him sing Psalms." 
But the word "Psalms " is not in the original — it is 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 93 

simply "let him sing," psalleto. Nor if he had used 
the express term psalmous, would it have necessarily con- 
fined his meaning to the book of Psalms. The term has 
a much wider meaning. 

The same result is reached when we observe in what 
sort of song the New Testament saints were accustomed 
to express their fervent thanksgivings to their Creator and 
Redeemer. How did Mary and Zacharias and Elizabeth 
praise God ? By repeating one of the Old Testament 
Psalms? No such thing. Read the record in Luke 1. 
"What sort of a song was that which John heard sung in 
the presence of "Him that sitteth on the throne V . Was 
it one of the Psalms of David ? Listen — " Thou art 
worthy to take the book, * * * for thou wast slain and 
hast redeemed us to God by thy blood. * * * Worthy 
is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches 
and wisdom and glory and blessing." And the apostle 
himself, when about to commence his record of the won- 
derful mysteries of the closing book of inspiration, as 
though he could not restrain his emotions, breaks forth, 
" Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins 
in his own blood," &c. These are merely specimens of 
the Psalmody which meets our eye the instant we open 
the New Testament. What person, having respect for 
the example of primitive Christianity, can have any 
doubt as to the duty and privilege of singing such songs 
as these.* 

There is, as it seems to us, a vast amount of loose logic 
current on these topics. Thus, " If the songs contained 

* In the preface to Ralph Erskine's " Scripture Songs from the four 
Evangelists," published at Falkirk, Scotland, 1796, the editor sa}'S : 
"Many parts of it (the Psalms of David) are peculiarly adapted to the Old 
Testament dispensation of carnal rites and ceremonies, * * • and not 
so perspicuously clear and full of the grace and spirit of the Gospel/' 
.viz. as the New Testament. " This," he adds, "has induced many de- 
vout and piously disposed persons ardently and sincerely to wish that 
our Psalmody were enlarged * * * by selections out of the Old Testa- 
ment, and a number from the New." "The latter," he says, "yields 
bo much agreeable matter of praise, and very suitable matter of songs 
and Divine hymns." \^orks, vol. 10, p. 027. 



94 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

in the book of Psalms were given to the church to be used 
in the praises of God, it will then be admitted that the 
point in dispute is settled/'* What point is settled? 
No one denies that the Psalms were given to the ancient 
Jewish church, and for the most part to be sung; but 
does that settle the further question, " Do these one hun- 
dred and fifty Psalms compose the exclusive Psalmody of 
the church under her new dispensation ? " Take a pa- 
rallel specimen of reasoning — The written revelation of 
God to the ancient church, consisted of " the Law, the 
Prophets and the Psalins." God was to be worshiped 
by the public reading of these Scriptures — they were 
given for this purpose. What point does this settle? 
Not surely that all other portions of Divine revelation 
in the New Testament must be excluded from the public 
reading in the house of God. 

Here is another example of bad logic. "The book of 
Psalms, whence was it? From heaven or of men? If 
from heaven, why not use it?"*}* We reply — " The Law 
and the Prophets, whence were they?- "If from 
heaven, why not use theni" to the exclusion of the New 
Testament Scriptures? The heavenly origin of the book 
of Psalms no one doubts, and we rejoice "to use it" for 
every purpose for which it was designed under the new 
dispensation. But that it was intended to be an exclu- 
sive system of Psalmody to all ages, is the very point to 
be proved. Of course the argument from its Divine 
origin is a mere begging of the question. " The Song of 
Solomon," and all the other songs and hymns scattered 
throughout the pages of the Bible, are all " from heaven" 
Does it follow that they are all to be used in public 
praise ? If our brethren will follow their own reasoning 
to this result, it will narrow the discussion to a very 
small point. 

Another specimen. " When we consider how fre- 
quently the apostles introduce the Psalms in their dis- 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 70. 

f Testimony of the United Presbyterian church, p. 44 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 95 

courses and epistles, ice cannot doubt that they regarded 
the matter of these sacred songs as very suitable to be 
employed in the worship of God." * But the fact is 
that the prophecies of Isaiah are more frequently quoted 
in the New Testament than the Psalms. Of course it 
follows that " they are even more suitable" for public 
praise ! Similar errors in reasoning are very frequent 
in connection with the inspiration of the Psalms, and it 
is boldly affirmed that " no argument is needed to prove 
that Rouse's version is the word of God I " f But if 
this were even so, are not the Law and the Prophets 
" the word of God ? " But this does not prove that they 
are to be read from the pulpit, to the exclusion of the 
whole New Testament ! To allege the " Divine appoint- 
ment" of the Psalms to be sung to solve the difficulty, 
is a sheer petitio principii — a begging of the question. 

Much importance in the argument, seems to be at- 
tached to the circumstance, that the Psalms have been 
collected into a separate " book" in the great volume 
of inspiration, and the inference is thence deduced that 
the object was to furnish an all-sufficient system of 
Psalmody for the church in all future ages. But here 
again the premises are too narrow to support the conclu- 
sion. On the supposition that these inspired composi- 
tions were to be preserved for the spiritual benefit of the 
church, and to be used in other modes besides song, how 
natural and reasonable that they should be grouped to- 
gether and hold a separate place among the varied pro- 
ductions of the Holy Spirit ? This was precisely what 
every intelligent mind would anticipate, viz. that these 
sacred odes should be embodied in a single book. The 
probable reason why a very few are found, not literally 
but substantially in other parts of the Bible, was that 
this was necessary for the integrity and completeness of 
the historical narrative, as in 2 Chronicles, chapter 22, 
compared with Psalm 18 — though in this and other 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 91. 
t Dodd's Reply, p. 89. 



96 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

cases there are very numerous points of difference. How 
would any intelligent uninspired editor act under similar 
circumstances ? If called to arrange and publish the 
works of a deceased friend, would not this grouping to- 
gether of the different species of composition be a first dic- 
tate of common sense ? It would be utterly absurd if such 
editor, in issuing the works of Cowper, for example, 
should throw together in promiscuous mass his fugitive 
poems and his familiar letters ! 

Again — If, as these brethren maintain, the songs of 
the church are to be restricted to one small portion of 
the inspired records, and if in disregarding this Divine 
limitation so far as to sing parts of Isaiah or the New 
Testament, we only expose ourselves to the Divine dis- 
pleasure, instead of having our sacrifices accepted— then 
certainly we are entitled to know very accurately, the time, 
place, personal agency, and other circumstances attending 
this "appointment" of an exclusive Psalmody for all 
coming ages. 

We are not inquiring as to the authority of the "boob 
of Psalms" as an integral part of Holy Writ, given "for 
our learning." This is just as plain in relation to that 
book as to Isaiah and the other inspired writings. Nei- 
ther is it a question merely of arrangement and classifi- 
cation " for doctrine, reproof, instruction," &c. There 
is no difficulty in such points as these. But we think 
we are entitled to particular information as to the person 
by whom the number of the Psalms was fixed at precise- 
ly one hundred and fifty, neither more nor less, for the 
express purpose of Psalmody to the exclusion of all 
other songs, inspired and uninspired. How and when 
was he appointed by the Great Author of Inspiration to 
establish this Divine " ordinance" and place a limit 
around it like to that which encircled Mount Sinai, with 
the terrible inscription, " Pass not over lest thou die !" 
We have a right to demand of these brethren a clear 
" thus saith the Lord" on these topics. 

That we are entitled to demand full satisfaction on 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 97 

these subjects, is obvious from the reasoning of these 
brethren themselves. When pressing their point in ar- 
uuinent, they are accustomed to remind us in the most 
solemn manner, of "the terrible death of Nadab and 
Abihu ) " and that "we have reason to apprehend that 
the disregard of Divine authority in the worship of God, 
will now subject the guilty to the displeasure of heaven 
as certainly" &c. And they further allege that when 
they happen to meet with Presbyterian congregations, 
" they are compelled to remain silent, lest they should be 
chargeable with offering strange fire before the Lord." * 
And citing the Jewish law in regard to bloody sacrifices, 
they point us to the certain destruction which awaited the 
presumptuous worshiper who should dare to present to 
the Lord "the flesh of the pig" instead of that of "the 
kid." •)" But as if all this were not enough, we are 
charged with taking "impious license" with the book of 
Psalms, and the whole is enforced by the awful maledic- 
tion : "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee 
and thou be found a liar." J 

But if all this be intended for anything more than 
rhetorical flourish, it must be obvious that we are entitled 
to require "the pattern showed in the mount." The 
most minute and express directions were divinely given 
to Moses and Aaron in relation to the Levitical offerings, 
and in the erection of the altar of sacrifices nothing could 
be more explicit than that it was to be made "of earth," 
not of "hewn stone," and that "no tool was to be lifted 
up upon it." Exodus 20 : 24, 25. If these brethren 
really believe that Presbyterians are exposed to such 
judgments as those of Nadab and Abihu — if the crime 
is so flagrant and the penalty so certain, as they pretend, 
let them produce the Divine "pattern." We demand the 
express directions of the Holy Spirit, or at least fair in- 
ferential proof, setting the fearful limit around the book 

* Prcssly on Psalmody, pp. P, 10. 

JPressly on Psalmody. 
Apology, p. 114. 



98 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

of Psalms. But if no such directions are to be found, 
then we would warn these brethren of the folly and crim- 
inality of attempting to call " down fire from heaven " 
upon all who "do not follow with them." 

It is no sufficient answer to the foregoing reasoning, to 
allege that the canon of Scripture was arranged by Ezra, 
and the Psalms were placed in their present position by 
an inspired hand. That is not the point. The canon 
would have been equally authoritative and complete, if 
there had been no "book of Psalms," i. e., if these sa- 
cred songs had been inserted in the lives of David and 
the other penmen of the Holy Spirit. The question is, 
"among all the variety of devotional poetry in the Bible, 
ichat Divine oracle has selected and fixed by a perpetual 
decree, or at least by fair inference, an inspired psalter 
of one hundred and fifty songs as the only and all-svffi- 
cient volume of praise to all ages ? " If no answer can be 
given to this inquiry, then "where there is no law, there 
is no transgression;" and we treat with derision pages 
of vapid denunciation as the empty flourish of feeble 
rhetoric. And we are the rather encouraged to this, be- 
cause the self-same logic which hurls upon our heads the 
penalties of the Jewish theocracy, would lead to the 
stoning of a man to death for "gathering sticks on the 
Sabbath." Numbers 15 : 32. 

But it is said with much confidence, that "there is no 
book of Psalms in the New Testament. Nor is there any 
promise of the influences of the Holy Spirit to assist any 
man in preparing one." * How is this to be accounted 
for ? We reply — no inspired booh of Psalms for the 
new dispensation was necessary. The theory of the 
Presbyterian church is complete and satisfactory without 
any New Testament volume of praise. We find a rich and 
varied supply both in the Old Testament and in the New ; 
in the former, especially in the book of Psalms — in the 
latter, not only all the noble songs and hymns sung by 
angels at the birth of Christ, &c, by the glorified church 
* Preesly on Psalmody, p. 85. 



WHERE IS THE DIVINE WARRANT. 99 

and by inspired men, but besides, hundreds of the most 
sweet and delightful and edifying passages in the gospels 
and the epistles, already prepared to our hand.* All 
that is necessary is to versify, for example, such admira- 
ble passages as that of "the prodigal son," or any simi- 
lar passage, and we have a most precious and affecting 
hymn of praise. And so with the deeply impressive 
scenes of the crucifixion : what heart can fail to relish, 
what tongue tenderly to respond to the narrative of the 
thiejf expiring on the cross, and turning his dying eyes 
upon the Saviour — "Lord, remember me." And then 
the sweet answer of the compassionate Redeemer — "This 
day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." And if we open 
the apostolic epistles, everywhere the holy raptures of the 
writers break forth in beautiful ascriptions of praise : 
"Unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only 
wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever, amen." 
Or take Paul's sublime argument for the resurrection, in 
1 Corinthians 15 : 51-58 — "For this corruptible must 
put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality; 
* * * then shall be brought to pass the saying that is 
written, Death shall be swallowed up in victory. 

death where is thy sting ? 
grave where is thy victory ? 

The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is 
the law. But thanks be to God who giveth us the vic- 
tory through our Lord Jesus Christ." These are noble 
specimens of the Psalmody of the New Testament. They 
are made to our band, and we ask no better. A volume 
at least twice as large as the "book of Psalms" can 
readily be gathered from this magnificent treasury of Di- 

* "We find in them (the apostolical epistles.) abundance of very 
suitable matter for instruction, meditation, prayer and praise. "When 
they are carefully looked into and examined with any degree of atten- 
tion, we find there many divine odes and sacred do.roloc/ies. " " The 
four evangelists yield * * * much matter of praise ; * * therein wo find 
several Divine songs and very suitable matter for Divine hymns"— 
Editor's Preface to the Works of Erskine, vol. 10, pp. 627, 64-1. 



3 00 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

vine truth. * And then we have, besides, all that is 
most rich and grand and instructive and animating in the 
Psalms, Isaiah and all the prophets. Let hundreds of 
such passages as those we have cited, be paraphrased and 
versified with even the large license of many of the 
Psalms by Rouse, and we will have a volume of praise 
such as might fire the souls even of the ransomed in 
glory. "No book of Psalms in the New Testament V 
We have what is far better — we have all that David and 
Asaph and Isaiah and the others wrote, illuminated by 
the brighter glories of the Sun of Righteousness, " who 
hath brought life and immortality to light through the 
gospel." We have all that the seraphic Paul, and the 
heavenly-minded John, and the golden-mouthed Luke 
("the beloved physician"), and the ardent lion-hearted 
Peter — what shall I say ! — we have the very icorcls of 
Him who was goodness, and mercy, and virtue, and wis- 
dom, all embodied in the incomparable person of the Son 
of God ! Surely the church would be hard to satisfy, if 
she could ask more than this ! 

But hark! It is the voice of the objector — "Your 
New Testament hymns are a serious corruption of the 
worship of God ! We dare not sing them, lest we should 
offer strange fire before the Lord ! " Yet this is the 
language of ministers of the gospel, who profess great 
respect, yea, profound reverence, for the words of inspira- 
tion ! Strange ! prejudice ! How blind art thou ! 

* Many beautifnl specimens may be seen in the hymn book of the 
United Presbyterian church of Scotland, sixty-five of which are by 
Dr. Watts. 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 101 



LETTER IX. 

"A MORE EXCELLENT WAY" — "WHOLE "WORD OF GOD OF USE TO 

DIRECT TS IX PRAISE ACTS OF OUR SUPREME JUDICATORY 

LABORS OF RALPH ERSKINE — EXTRACT FROM NORTH BRITISH RE- 
VIEW IN COMMENDATION OF DR. WATTS — HIS LABORS IN PSAL- 
MODY — HE VIEWED HIS VERSIFICATION AS A PARAPHRASE, NOT 
ALWAYS A STRICT TRANSLATION — MANY OF HIS PSALMS ARE 
CORRECT VERSIONS, AS REALLY AS ROCSE IN SAME PSALMS — 

SPECIMENS OF WATTS* MANNER, STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS PSALMS 

NEED EXPOSITION TESTIMONY OF PROF. PATTERSON. 

My Dear Sir: — Having in previous Letters stated 
the principle adopted by our brethren in the matter of 
Psalmody, and given numerous illustrations of their 
practice under it, we are now prepared to exhibit, some- 
what at large, " a more excellent way." 

Receiving, as we do, " the whole word of Grod as of 
use to direct us" in his praise, no less than " in prayer" 
and the other parts of worship, we cannot adopt the 
theory which limits the church under her present dispen- 
sation to a small, though very precious collection of 
Psalms originally given to the Jews for a part of their 
temple service. Still less can we accept an explanatory 
paraphrase of those Psalms as " the very songs which 
God has given," " the veritable songs of inspiration in a 
fair and literal translation." To do this would be to 
deny the plainest evidence of our senses, to call black 
white, and white black, "to put bitter for sweet, and 
sweet for bitter." What, then, have we to show. as "the 
more excellent way ? " 

If we were compelled to accept the judgment of those 
who oppose us, our cause must be desperate indeed. We 
will copy, for the amusement of the reader, a few of the 
curious epithets by which they attempt to disparage the 
Psalmody of our branch of the church. " Loose para- 
phrases," "modern hymns," "productions of an English 
poet/' "hymns of mere human invention," "entire re- 
9* 



102 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

jection, and impious rejection of the Psalms which God 
has given to his church to be sung," " mere effusions of 
men," " man-made Psalm book," " impious license taken 
with the book of Psalms," " preference of a human to a 
Divine book of Psalms," " exclusion of Scripture songs," 
u Psalm book prepared by man," " songs of human com- 
posure," "Watts' whyines," "confusion of Babel," &c. 
These specimens are selected from the most respectable 
authors on that side of the question. 

But we are not to be silenced by declamation. Rail- 
ing convinces nobody. We propose the only safe test in 
such cases, viz. an appeal to the record and to facts. 

I. It is an undeniable fact that our Supreme Judicatory 
have, by a standing rule, often repeated but never repealed, 
authorized the use of Rouse's versification of the Psalms 
Thus, in 1787, after "allowing the use of Watts as re- 
vised by Barlow," they say, "we are at the same time 
FAR FROM disapproving of Rouse 7 s version, commonly 
called i the old Psalms/ in those who are in the use of 
them and choose to continue ; * * * and do highly disap- 
prove of severe and unchristian censures being passed 
upon either of said systems of Psalmody." 

Now as in the judgment of these brethren, "Rouse's 
paraphrase" is " the songs of inspiration," this action of 
the Supreme Court of the Presbyterian church certainly 
does not look like " an impious rejection of the Psalms !" 
" We are far from disapproving of Rouse s version." 

The men who constituted the first Presbytery of our 
church (1705) were emigrants from Scotland and Ireland. 
They brought their Psalmody with them, and being en- 
deared to them by recollections of home and similar asso- 
ciations, they were not likely to make any hasty changes 
in that department of worship. But the mother churches 
of Scotland had never adopted the modern exclusive prin- 
ciple which is so zealously defended in this country.* 

* This appears from several considerations : 

1. From the earliest specimens sung by the Scottish martyrs and 
reformers, and which were anything but u literal translations" of the 
Psalms. 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 103 

And their children entertained the same liberal and broad 
views in founding and rearing the Presbyterian church. 

Hence, when in the lapse of three quarters of a cen- 
tury (1706-1787), by the blessing of God on their 
labors, they had greatly multiplied — when in the ordina- 
ry revolution of language, manners, customs, kc, it was 
fraud highly important to have snme improvement in 
Psalmody, they would naturally call to mind the acts of 
the Scottish General Assembly in 1647 and in 1701-7, 
for "examining the other Scripture songs by Zachary 
Boyd and by Patrick Sympson," those versified by the 
latter " having been recommended by that Assembly 
(1701) to be used in private families, in order to prepare 
them for the public use of the church." And these early 
Presbyterians well knew that in 1747 the Associate or 
Antiburgher Presbytery of Scotland had recommended 
the celebrated Ralph Erskine " to versify the other 
Scripture songs/' which labor he accomplished, quoting 
in his " preface" to the volume the action of the church 
of Scotland, as follows : 

" The work of turning all the rest of the Scripture 
songs into metre, as the Psalms of David are, and for the 
same public use, was proposed by the church of Scotland, 
more than one hundred years ago, and that in one of the 
most noted periods of reformation; particularly by an 
Act of Assembly, August 28th, 1647." 

2. The first complete versification (Sternhold and Hopkins') was a 
broad paraphrase, mingled with New Testament explanations, and 
embraced two Doxplogies of mere "human composure." 

3. The churches of Scotland long since authorized, and constantly 
have in use, a volume of sixty-seven paraphrases of " other parts of 
Scripture," to which are appended five or six pure hymns from Addison 
and others. 

4. From " Stewart's Collections " we learn, that by the 15th Act of 
April, 170S, the Commission of the Assembly was "instructed and ap- 
pointed to consider the printed version of the Scripture songs," (not 
the Psalms,) " with the remarks of the Presbyteries thereupon, and after 
examination thereof they were authorized and empowered to conclude 
and emit the same, for the public use of the church,- the present ver- 
sion of the Psalms" (that is, Rouse's,) " having been ordered in the same 
manner, in the year 1649.'" 



104 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

Nor were these early Presbyterians ignorant that the 
same Ralph Erskine had regarded his labors upon " the 
other Scripture songs," as an important addition to the 
Psalmody of the Associate church. Thus he remarks : 

" As the poems and songs here written, are in the form 
of what is called rhyme and common metre, so the reason 
thereof is, to answer the design proposed to me, of making 
the Scripture songs adapted to the common tunes, so as 
it may be practicable to sing them as ice do the Psalms of 
David." 

Again, in his preface to the " Song of Solomon," he 
says, after quoting Ephesians 18 : 19, and Colossians 3 : 
16 — " That you may be the more able to sing it ('the 
song') over with understanding, I have endeavored to lay 
open its mysteries," &c. 

Again, he says he put his verse in " common metre," 
that "in case any should see fit to make some of these 
lines a part of their spiritual and devout recreation in 
secret, they might, if they please, sing them over in any 
of the tunes to which they are accustomed in our Scottish 
church." This refers to secret worship — but the " Testi- 
mony" of our brethren includes " worship both public 
and private." 

With such antecedents and authorities as these, it was 
to be expected that the Presbyterian church in this coun- 
try should early take decided action for the improvement 
of her Psalmody. Accordingly, under the leadership of 
Dr. Witherspoon, (clarum et venerabile nomen^) Dr. 
Rodgers, and men of like spirit, the act of our Supreme 
Judicatory quoted above, was passed, so far as appears 
on the records, without a dissenting voice. 

This action of our highest church court is viewed by 
the brethren we oppose, as a " preference of a. human 
to a Divine book of Psalms" — u an impious license," 
calling for Divine rebuke. But the facts are all against 
them. In the year 1705, our church consisted of seven 
ministers, and two or three years later they reported ten 
small congregations, numbering probably less than one 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 105 

thousand communicants. We pass on three-quarters of 
a century, during all which term Rouse's versification is, 
with almost no exception, exclusively the Psalmody of 
the church. She now (1787) reports thirteen Presbyte- 
ries and one hundred and sixty-three ministers, with pro- 
bably two hundred congregations. The increase has been 
great, and she has reason to triumph in her God and 
King. But we pass over another three-fourths of a cen- 
tury, during all which time the church lies under the 
guilt of "an impious rejection of God's Psalm book." 
How stands the same church now, 1858 ? To the ever- 
lasting praise of her ascended Saviour be it spoken — she 
now numbers one hundred and fifty-nine Presbyteries, 
two thousand four hundred and sixty-eight ministers, 
three thousand three hundred and twenty-four churches, 
and more than two hundred and sixty thousand church 
members — while during the single year which terminated 
last May, she received to her communion from the world, 
twenty thousand seven hundred and ninety-two hopeful 
converts. At the same time, in all that constitutes puri- 
ty, unity, Christian activity and usefulness, she is not a 
whit behind the very chief of the embattled hosts of God's 
elect, " her enemies themselves being judges." We say 
it in no spirit of boasting, but we trust with profound hu- 
mility and dependence on Divine grace. Facts like 
these do not show a church forsaken of her Almighty 
King ! At the same rate of increase, it will require less 
than three years to swell her membership by an accession 
eight thousand greater than the sum total of the late 
Associate and Associate Reformed churches, now united 
in one body. 

It is impossible at this late day, to ascertain minutely 
the motives which induced Dr. Witherspoon, and the 
other ministers and elders of our church, to seek an im- 
proved Psalmody. In the Act cited above there is not 
the remotest hint of any hostility to the precious u book 
of Psalms." Even of Rouse's antiquated versification 
they say they " are far from disapproving." They did 



106 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

not allege that "an uncouth version (House's) had put 
David's Psalms out of the church, and it would keep 
them out." * We do not read that they urged the duty 
and necessity oi an improved version, as Dr. Cooper does, 
because " no man of any taste and scholarship can fail to feel 
so." Nor yet in the words of Dr. Beveridge — "It must 
require a strong love for the inspired Psalms to overcome 
the distaste which would otherwise be felt to the language 
in which they are sometimes clothed, especially by young 
persons and strangers." 

These were doubtless regarded by such men as Wither- 
spoon and Rodgers as matters of considerable interest — 
but we have reason to believe that they felt as their fore- 
fathers did, and especially such men as the judicious 
editor of Ralph Erskine's works, who penned the follow- 
ing : 

" Though the Psalms of David are truly excellent and 
sublime, containing suitable matter for praise and adora- 
tion, &c, yet there are many passages in them peculiarly 
adapted to the old dispensation of carnal rites and cere- 
monies, and on that account, cannot be sujyposed to be so 
clear and full of the grace and spirit of the gospel. The 
consideration hereof hath induced many devout and 
piously disposed persons, ardently and sincerely to wish 
that our Psalmody were enlarged, not only by adding 
some other Scripture songs out of the Old Testament, 
but particularly by selecting a number from the New." 

It is on such broad and liberal principles as these 
that our church has always acted. They could adopt, in 
part at least, the language of Dr. John Owen, whose name 
is a tower of strength in theology. He says : " There 
was a promise of eternal life given to the saints under the 
Old Testament : but whereas they were obliged to a wor- 
ship that was carnal and outwardly pompous, they never 
had clear and distinct apprehensions of the future state 
of glory : for life and immortality were brought to light 
by the gospel." 

* Rev. "W. Davidson, of the United Presbyterian church. 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 107 

Believing that there are brighter displays of the " ex- 
cellent glory" in the New than in the Old Testament, 
they felt it to be a duty to use the clearer light, no less 
in the ordinance of praise, than in the other exercises of 
worship. We are far from "an impious setting aside of the 
Psalms which God has given, and using in their stead 
the mere productions of men" * as is rashly affirmed to 
our prejudice. 

II. We are now prepared to examine the improvements 
which our church has authorized ; and this is the more 
necessary, as it is especially upon these that our brethren 
direct the chief battery of their denunciations. The 
main instrument in preparing " the Psalms and Hymns " 
as we now use them, was the celebrated Dr. Isaac Watts. f 
A few years subsequent to the organization of the first 
Presbytery of our church (1705), Dr. W. published his 
system of Psalmody, perhaps 1708. Of the position 
which the " Psalms and Hymns" versified by Dr. W. 
maintain in the Free church of Scotland and the sister 
denominations, we cannot give a better idea than in the 
appended extracts from the "North British Review,"J 
which was founded by Chalmers, and is sustained by the 
leading men of the Free church : " A century and a half 
ha3 nearly passed," says the Review, " since the publication 
of Dr. Watts' Psalms and Hymns ; yet nothing has ap- 
peared to dim their lustre ; as yet nothing threatens to 
supersede them. With their doctrinal fullness, their sa- 
cred fervor, their lyric grandeur, they stand alone, over- 
topping all their fellows." " To elevate to poetic 
altitudes every truth in Christian experience and revealed 
religion, needs the strength and sweep of an eagle's wing ; 
and this is what Isaac Watts has done. He has taken 
almost every topic which exercises the understanding and 
the heart of the believer, and has not only given it a de- 

* Rev. Dr. Kerr, editor of the Preacher. That our church feels no 
aversion to the system of Rouse, is obvious, in that she has lately added 
fifty selections from it to her Psalmody, as most commonly used. 

f Born 1674 ; died 1748. 

J For August, 1857. 



108 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

votional aspect, but has wedded it to immortal numbers ; 
and, whilst there is little to which he has not shown 
himself equal, there is nothing which he has done for 
mere effect. They are naturalized through all the Anglo- 
Saxon world, and, next to Scripture itself, are the great 
vehicle of pious thought and feeling." Again, says the 
same high authority: "A climbing boy was once heard 
singing in a chimney, 

' The sorrows of the mind 

Be banished from this place. 
Religion never was designed 

To make our pleasures less/ 

And, like King David's own Psalter, the same strains 
which cheered the poor sweep in the chimney, and melted 
to tears the Northamptonshire peasants, have roused the 
devotion or uttered the rapture of ten thousand thousand 
worshipers; and there is many a reader who, in his ex- 
perience, can imagine nothing more akin to celestial en- 
joyment, than the sensations which he shared in singing, 
when the heart of some solemn assembly was uplifted as 
one man, 'Come, let us join our cheerful song/ or, 
'Jesus shall reign where'er the sun/ " 

The contrast between this high eulogy from the pen of 
one of the gifted sons of the "Free church of Scotland/' 
and the abusive epithets near the beginning of this 
Letter, is curious enough. But our safest course is, " to 
search the record/' as the lawyers say, and thus ascertain 
for ourselves where the truth lies. 

III. The judgment formed by Dr. Watts, in regard to 
his poetical labors, may be gathered from his own words. 
He frequently describes his versification as a "para- 
phrase." Thus : " Whensoever there shall appear any 
paraphrase of the book of Psalms that retains more of 
the savor of David's piety, and discovers more of the 
style and spirit of the gospel, * * * let this attempt 
of mine be buried in silence." Whether he is more or 
less paraphrastic than Rouse, is of course another ques- 
tion, which is not now under discussion. 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY, 109 

Again, Dr. W. employs the general title, " The Psalms 
of David, imitated in the language of the New Testament, 
and applied to the Christian state and worship." His 
meaning is indicated as follows : "Where the Psalmist 
speaks of sacrificing goats or bullocks, I rather choose to 
mention the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God. When 
he attends the ark with shouting into Zion, I sing the 
ascension of my Saviour. * * * Why should I now 
address my God and Saviour in a song with burnt sacri- 
fices of fatlings, and with the incense of rams, * * * 
why should I bind my sacrifices with cords to the horns 
of the altar t" &c. 

Again : In a letter* dated March 17th, 1718, and ad- 
dressed to the eminently pious Dr. Cotton Mather, of 
New England, and in which he submitted some speci- 
mens of his labors in Psalmody, Dr. Watts writes as fol- 
lows : " It is not a translation of David I pretend, but 
an imitation of him so nearly in Christian (or gospel) 
hymns that the Jewish Psalmist may 'plainly appear, yet 
leave Judaism behind." 

From this extract two things are plain : 

1. Dr. W. did not design to exclude David from the 
Psalmody of the church ) on the contrary, he says he 
aimed to make him "plainly appear" yet without "Ju- 
daism." 

2. In the phrase " Christian hymns/' he obviously 
intended such a use of the terms as when we speak of 
u the Christian (or gospel) dispensation," in opposition 
to the "Jewish economy." This also shows what he 
means when he sometimes uses the objectionable phraseol- 
ogy, "teach David to speak like a Christian, or the com- 
mon sense (or experience) of a Christian." He evident- 
ly means the opposite of Jewish experience. So in 
referring to translators of the Psalms, he says : " They 
taught the Hebrew Psalmist to speak English." But how 
unfair would it be to represent Dr. W. as teaching that 
the Holy Spirit, the real author of the Psalms, did not 

• Publishod in the Boston Recorder, and certified by the editors. 
10 



110 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

understand the English language I Such a misrepresen- 
tation would be scouted by every candid and honorable 
mind, and must recoil upon its authors. Yet very much 
such usage has Dr. W. received from certain writers ! 
" What need is there/' he exclaims, "that I should wrap 
up the shining honors of my Redeemer in the dark and 
shadowy language of a religion which is now forever 
abolished ; especially since Christians are so vehemently 
warned by Paul "against a Judaizing spirit? " His ob- 
ject was, as he himself affirms, " to change the dark ex- 
pressions, and the Levitical ceremonies and Hebrew forms, 
into the worship of the gospel ." * * * an d he adds, 
"thus should I rejoice to see a good part of the book 
of Psalms fitted for the use of the churches and David 
converted into a Christian." We do not defend the use 
of such phraseology, because it is very liable to be mis- 
understood ) but when interpreted agreeably to the com- 
monest rules of candor, it conveys no objectionable sense 
to any intelligent mind. Indeed, Dr. W. in these sen- 
tences, proposes to do with David precisely what every 
minister does, when from the pulpit he explains to the 
people these typical expressions, and teaches them to 
sing them as interpreted by the light of the gospel ! If 
such a minister explains the Psalms correctly, he will, in 
most such cases, put into the hearts of his people (what- 
ever may be in their lips,) just the admirable sense and 
import of these Jewish ceremonies as they are happily 
explained and versified by Dr. Watts ! It is thus these 
Associate and Associate Reformed ministers "convert 
David into a Christian !" The heinous crime in the one 
case, is no less shocking than in the other ; the chief dif- 
ference being this — the one (Dr. Watts) sins in good 
poetry ) the other (the preacher) sins in plain prose ! 
And in singing such hymns, the devout Christian does 
what is enjoined in the Directory of the Associate Re- 
formed church — " in singing those parts of them [the 
Psalms] which are expressed in the ceremonial style, or 
describe the circumstances of the writers ? or of the church 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. Ill 

in ancient times, we should have our eye upon the general 
principles which are implied in them, and which are ap- 
2^1 icable to individuals or to the church in every age." 
Book 3, Ch. 3, Sec. 3. 

IV. We are now prepared to take another step in the 
discussion. Every one familiar with his Bible, knows 
that of the compositions of "the sweet Psalmist of 
Israel," many have nothing of "Judaism" about them. 
They are beautiful expressions of that heaven-born piety, 
which is the same at all times and everywhere, whether 
among Jews or Gentiles. How does Dr. Watts deal with 
this class of Psalms? 

We reply, he very generally gives correct versions of 
such Psalms ; for example, the first, the twenty-third, the 
hundredth, &c. In this large and very precious class of 
sacred songs, he generally gives quite as correct a version 
as Rouse, and incomparably superior in all that consti- 
tutes poetry. This assertion may possibly surprise some 
persons who have been taught to regard our Psalmody, 
in the words of Bev. Dr. Kerr, of the " Preacher," as 
"the mere productions of men." But we again appeal 
to the record. Here is Dr. Watts' own account of the 
matter : In speaking of " the true method " of preparing 
the Psalms for New Testament worship, he says : 
" Psalms that are purely doctrinal or merely historical, 
are subjects for our meditation, and may be translated 
for our present use with no variation, if it were possible; 
and in general, all those songs of Scripture which the 
saints of following ages may assume for their own ; such 
as the 1st, the 8th, the 19th, and many others." We 
had intended to give a series of illustrations of this prin- 
ciple, copied from the Psalmody of our church — but for 
want of space, we confine ourselves to one specimen, the 
100th Psalm, placing the prose of our Bibles in parallel 
column with the versification of Dr. Watts, as follows : 

Make a joyful noise unto the Ye nations round the earth, rejoice 
Lord, all ye lands. Before the Lord, your sovereign 

king. 



112 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

oerve the Lord with gladness. Serve him with cheerful heart and 

voice, 
Come before his presence with With all your tongues his glory sing. 
singing. 

Know ye that the Lord he is The Lord is God; 'tis he alone 

God: it is he that made us, and Doth life and health and being give, 

not we ourselves; we are his We are his work, and not our own, 

people, and the sheep of his pas- The sheep that on his pasture live, 
ture. 

Enter into his gates with Enter his gates with songs of joy; 
thanksgiving, into his courts With praises to his courts repair, 
with praise ; be thankful to him And make it your divine employ 
and bless his name. To pay your thanks and honors 

there. 

For the Lord is good ; his mer- The Lord is good, the Lord is kind ; 
ey is from everlasting: and his Great is his grace, his mercy sure, 
truth endureth to all generations. And the whole race of men shall find 

His truth from age to age endure. 

The right column, it will be seen, contains a very fair 
version of a precious inspired song of praise. It is much 
nearer a " correct and faithful version " than two-thirds 
of Rouse's paraphrases ; and on the principles of our 
brethren, is therefore more strictly and truly u an in- 
spired Psalm/' Yet in addition to this large class of 
purely devotional soDgs, Dr. W. says, "he designed to 
make no variation in the purely doctrinal and histor- 
ical Psalms/' All these, therefore, if Dr. W. executed 
his purpose, are "the songs which God has given," not 
" tho mere effusions of men," not " hymns of mere hu- 
man invention," as our brethren rashly assert ! 

V. It was the express design of Dr. W. "wherever he 
found the person and offices of our Lord Jesus Christ in 
prophecy, to translate them in a way of history ;" and he 
adds, " such evangelical truths should be stript of their 
veil of darkness," &c. When, for example, he read in 
Psalm 40 : 6, " Mine ears hast thou opened," — he added 
with the apostle, " A body hast thou prepared me," &c. 
But such a use of New Testament light is quite offensive 
to our brethren, savoring of " impious license with the 
Psalms," " attempting to write better than David," &c. 
But it is remarkable that in her earliest, her martyr 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 113 

Psalmody, the church of Scotland employed this very 
principle, i. e., she accommodated the Psalms to New 
Tes tame flrt forms. Open the versification by Sternhold 
and Hopkins, which was used by that honored church for 
an hundred years before Rouse was thought of. Let us 
look at a few specimens of this " gospel turn." How is 
•this matter managed in the second Psalm ? Omitting 
some examples quoted in another Letter, pass to verse 
12th : u When his wrath is kindled but a little, blessed 
are all they that put their trust in him.'" 



°; 



STERNHOLD. DR. WATTS. 

If once his wrath never so small If once his wrath arise, 

Shall kindle in his breast: Ye perish on the place; 

then all they that trust in Christ Then blessed is the soul that flies 

Shall happy be and blest. For refuge to his grace. 

Did the Church of Scotland imagine that such a use 
of the Psalms was "impious ?" But take another exam- 
ple : " The kings of the earth set themselves, and the 
rulers take counsel together against the Lord ; and against 
his anointed." 

STERNHOLD. DR. WATTS. 

The kings and rulers of the earth Why did the Gentiles rage, 

Conspire and all are bent And Jews with one accord, 

Against the Lord and Christ his Bend all their counsels to destroy 

Sonne, The anointed of the Lord. 
Which he amongst us sent.% 

This is another illustration of what Dr. Watts means 
by " converting David into a Christian. " Sternhold 
and the church of Scotland practiced the same sort of 
conversion! Take a further illustration from David's 
beautiful penitential Psalm, the 51st, v. 7 : " Purge me 
with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and I shall 
be whiter than the snow/' 

* " Where the original runs in the form of prophpcy concerning Christ and 
his salvation, lhave given a historical turn to the sense."' — Dr. Watts. 

10* 



114 



LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 



STERNHOLD. DR. WATTS. 

If thou with hyssop purge this blot wash my soul from every sin, 
I shall be cleaner than the glasse, And make my guilty v conscience 
And if thou wash away my spot, clean. 

The snow in whiteness I shall passe. No bleeding bird, nor bleeding 

beast, 
Nor hyssop branch, nor sprinkling 

priest, 
Nor running brook, nor flood, nor 

sea, 
Can wash the dismal stain away. 

Again: observe the u gospel turn" in this: Psalm 
87 : 5 : " And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man 
was born in her; and the Highest himself shall establish 
her." 



STERNHOLD. 

In their records to them it shall 
Through God's device appeare, 
Of Sion that the Chief of all 
Had his beginning there.* 



DR. WATTS. 

Egypt and Tyre, and Greek and 

Jew, 
Shall there begin their lives anew ; 
'Twill be an honor to appear 
As one new born and nourished 

there. 

Thus it will be seen, in accordance with the commenta- 
tors, the venerable church of Scotland here fixes her eye 
upon " the Chiefest among ten thousand, the One alto- 
gether lovely," and is neither ashamed nor afraid to 
make the reference distinctly visible in her Psalmody. 

We have room for only one additional example of this 
ancient Scottish " gospel turn." It is in Psalm 120 : 
6-7 : " My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth 
peace. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for 
war." 

DR. WATTS. 



Peace is the blessing that I seek, 
How lorely are its charms ! 
I am for peace — but when I speak 
They all declare for arms. 



STERNHOLD. 

With them that peace did hate 

I came a peace to make 

And set a quiet life. 

But when my tale is told, 

Causeless I was controlde 

By them that would have strife. 

If only " a correct and faithful version" is of " Divine 

* "I have often indulged the liberty of paraphrase, according to the words of 
Christ and his Apostles." — Dr. Watts. 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 115 

appointment," neither of these versifications has very 
strong pretensions to it. But ours is quite a literal copy 
compared with Sternhold. Three lines of Sternhold's six 
are paraphrastic. Watts did not venture to give this a 
u gospel turn;" but Sternhold and Hopkins evidently 
had in their eye the New Testament history of Christ 
the " Prince of peace," who came " a peace to make" 
by " the blood of his cross." And both Bishop Home 
and Dr. Scott in their comments, direct attention to " the 
Son of David, the Prince of peace," and Scott adds that 
here " David prefigured Christ." So thought the ancient 
church of Scotland, and accordingly arranges her Psal- 
mody, so as to express this blessed truth.* 

We could easily add to this list of " gospel turns," but 
we forbear. It thus appears that from the period of her 
first martyr, down to the Westminster Assembly (1643), 
the church of Scotland condemned in her practice the 
principle which requires " a correct and faithful version 
as of Divine appointment." It appears, moreover, that 
these variations from a faithful version or translation, 
were designed, deliberate, made on principle, and not at 
all accidental, or to be attributed to haste, carelessness, 
or the difficulty of constructing a versification in rhyme. 
Many of them are the very same sort of studied depart- 
ures from the literal text for which our Psalmody has 
been so bitterly and unsparingly denounced ; and in sev- 
eral instances, that venerable church, with her martyrs 
and other men of God, is demonstrated to have deliber- 
ately adopted and reduced to practice some of the very 
principles which lie at the basis of our system, and that 
in a more open, obvious " impious" manner and degree 
than was ever practiced even by Dr. Watts himself ! 

It is obvious, therefore, as is well remarked by Dr. 
Beveridge, that in the earliest metred Psalmody of that 

* "What need is there that I should wrap up the shining honors of 
my Redeemer in the dark and shadowy language of a religion that is 
now for ever abolished." " What fault can there be in enlarging a little 
on the more useful subjects in the style of the gospel, (as Sternhold 
does,) where the Psalui gives any occasion. " — Dr. Watts. 



116 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

church , (( great liberties were taken/' and that these liberties 
were in numerous instances of the very same sort which Dr. 
Watts adopted in constructing his system of praise, much 
of which has been embodied in the Presbyterian Psalmo- 
dy; and further, that those identical principles for which 
he has been most violently abused and denounced, are here 
incorporated and acted out by Sternhold, and practiced by 
the ancient Scottish church ! Hence it follows, that in the 
structure of her Psalmody, the Presbyterian church, by 
rejecting the exclusive idea of "a correct and faithful 
version of the whole book of Psalms/ ' has only returned 
to the safe precedent and pure practice of the noblest and 
best church of the Protestant Reformation, in the days of 
her greatest glory. The principle is the same in both 
systems, though it has been more extensively introduced 
in our Psalmody than in theirs. Both equally reject 
" the Divine right" of u a correct and faithful version of 
the Psalms" — in both the right and duty are recognized 
and deliberately reduced to practice, viz. to deviate in 
various methods and on all suitable occasions, from " a 
correct and faithful version/' The illustrations which 
might be brought forward from the system of praise 
adopted by that noble old Presbyterian church, would fill 
many pages, since more or less of the same additions, 
omissions, historic amendments, exegetical comments, 
" gospel turns/' &c. ; might be collected from nearly 
every page. 

We pause here. Enough has been said to enable every 
one to decide whether u the songs contained in the book 
of Psalms are virtually excluded from the worship of the 
(Presbyterian) church."* In view of such facts and reason- 
ings as the foregoing, was it worthy of these brethren to 
publish our church as " shoving God's hymn-book aside, 
and substituting one made by ourselves — laying aside a 
G-od-written book, except two short hymns, and using in 
its place a man-written book," which they interpret to 
mean that " a mere man (Dr. Watts, for example,) has 
% Dr. Pressly, in the Preacher, September 27, 1844, 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 117 

written a Letter book than God." * Certainly Dr. Watts 
never exposed himself to any such imputations, since his 
avowed object was, " that the Jewish Psalmist (i. e,, his 
inspired sentiments,) should plainly APPEAR, yet leave 
Judaism behind." f 

VI. Before I close this Letter, another topic demands 
a moment's attention. Is there any great importance to 
be attached to the explanatory and paraphrastic improve- 
ments introduced by our Scottish forefathers, and ex- 
tended in our Psalmody ? Was there a necessity for such 
explanations of parts of the Psalms ? We answer : 

1. Bishop Home, in the preface to his commentary, 
remarks — " Is it not to be feared that for want of such 
instructions (expositions, &c.) the repetition of the 
Psalms, as performed by multitudes, is but one degree 
above mechanism" Dr. Watts states this thing in va- 
rious forms, and undertook his versification for the 
avowed purpose of remedying this sore evil. 

2. Our brethren themselves in effect concede all that 
is asserted by Bishop Home. They adopt the practice of 
explaining the Psalm before the people sing it, at least 
one Psalm each Sabbath — the others they leave unex- 
plained. Now why is this explanation thought to be 
very important? One writer says, "It is to stir up de- 
votional feelings, and prepare the worshipers to engage in 
praising God with suitable affections." J But is that all ? 
Hear Prof. Patterson || in the " Westminster Herald," 
February, 1855. He says — " The Psalms require expo- 
sition" " That all may sing profitably for personal and 

* United Presbyterian, March, 1851. 

f We quote Dr. Watts' express declarations. " Far be it from my 
thoughts," he says, " to lay aside the Book of Psalms in public 
worship; few can pretend so great a value for them as myself. It is 
the most artful, most devotional and Divine collection of poesy ; and 
nothing can be supposed more proper to raise a pious soul to heaven, 
than some parts of that book ; never was a piece of experimental 
divinity so nobly written and so justly reverenced." 

J Pressly on Psalmody, p. 25. 

|| See an article signed P. of date as above. Prof. P. is an able 
minister of the United Presbyterian church. 



118 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

mutual edification, they must understand them." u Peo- 
ple who hardly ever hear them explained know nothing 
of their spiritual worth." He says, " he has viewed the 
decline of the good old-fashioned plan of expounding 
a part of the Psalm, with feelings of deep solicitude" — 
and adds, that it is "a manifest declination from duty." 
u Shall these well-springs of the God of Israel be closed 
and sealed ? " These expressions are more than Dr. 
Watts ever ventured to say on that topic. Prof. P. is 
thus full and explicit, though we do not see why his re- 
marks do not apply with equal force to the five other 
Psalms sung each Sabbath, as well as to the first one used 
at the morning service, which alone is explained. It is 
not necessary to maintain that the people sing the minis- 
ter s explanations, — they sing "Rouse's paraphrase/' 
putting the minister's explanations on the words. The 
Presbyterian system embodies " the explanations/' not 
in all the Psalms, but in all cases in which they are 
needed, in the poetry itself. They are usually " the ex- 
planations" of our best commentators put into smooth 
verse. If both parties u sing with the spirit and under- 
standing also," as Paul requires, both employ the same 
sentiments, the chief difference consisting only in the 
form of ivords, whether of Rouse or Dr. Watts. 



SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 119 



LETTER X. 

ATTEMPTS TO CREATE PREJUDICE BY REFERENCE TO THE SENTI- 
MENTS OF DR. WATTS — HOW FAR PRESBYTERIANS ARE RESPON- 
SIBLE FOR HIS STATEMENTS GREATLY MISREPRESENTED HIS 

HIGH APPRECIATION OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS EXAMINATION OF 

SUNDRY OBJECTIONS " OMISSIONS " — " WATTS WROTE BETTER THAN 

DAVID" — "OUR PSALMODY NOT THE WORD OF GOD " "TENDS TO 

WEAKEN THE CLAIMS OF INSPIRATION" — "THOSE WHO USE ROUSE, 
CERTAINLY SING THE TRUTH" " DARE NOT SING HUMAN COMPO- 
SITION," &C. &C. 

My Dear Sir : — In reading the ablest treatises by our 
brethren, one thing must have struck every candid mind 
with surprise, viz. the labored effort they make to arouse 
prejudice and create odium by certain quotations from 
"the essay" and " prefaces" of Dr. Watts. We are re- 
peatedly told that "the imitation" was introduced to 
public notice in this country by "prefaces" containing 
hitter libels against the songs of Zion, and that it was re- 
commended by those sentiments," and "the arguments 
most popular and frequently used, represent these Divine 
compositions (the Psalms) as Christless." * 

But surely it requires no proof to show that the essay 
and prefaces of Dr. W. are of no authority in our church. 
She has never indorsed, nor even printed them. So far 
as has come under the notice of the writer, they have 
never been reprinted in this country ; and therefore are 
very rarely to be met with, except in the fragmentary 
extracts found in certain books on Psalmody ! In pre- 
paring the materials for these Letters, we searched in vain 
every library to which we could gain access in Pittsburgh ; 
and at last were successful in finding a copy of Dr. Watts' 
works, only in the library of a gentleman who had 
brought it from Europe. The Presbyterian church, as 
intimated in another Letter, has never adopted many of 
the sentiments and suggestions of that writer, exhibiting 
* Apology, p. 77. 



120 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

his reasons for certain changes in the Psalms. They are 
his reasons, not ours. This is true even when these 
reasons are understood in their most favorable sense — 
and especially so, when, as we maintain, they are perverted 
to mean what is notoriously contrary to his deliberate and 
oft repeated declarations. As to their being common 
and popular arguments in defense of our Psalmody, 
nothing is more opposed to the truth. The writer of 
these pages was for more than twenty-Jive years a member 
of the Presbyterian body, and never once met with the 
documents referred to, except in M'Master's Apology, 
and this we know to be a common experience both among 
our ministry and membership. Indeed, if some objection- 
able expressions of Dr. Watts' u essay and prefaces" had 
not been carefully published and disseminated by these 
brethren, for the avowed purpose of prejudicing the cause 
of a New Testament Psalmody, they would have been 
dead and, forgotten long ago. Upon their heads, not upon 
ours, must rest the blame, whatever it may be, of keep- 
ing certain injudicious phraseology used by Dr. Watts 
before the public mind. 

But Dr. W. is charged with having uttered " bitter 
libels against the songs of Zion." We have never met 
with anything from his pen, which, on a fair construction, 
could justify such an assertion. Dr. W. is not common- 
ly accused with wanting common sense — yet he must 
have been little less than crazed if he could have been 
guilty of such profane and wicked conduct, while in the 
same pages he wrote as follows : " I esteem the book of 
Psalms as the most valuable part of the Old Testament, 
on many accounts. I advise the reading and meditation 
of it more frequently than any single book of Scripture ; 
arid what I advise I practice. Nothing is more proper 
to furnish our souls with devout thoughts and lead us 
into a world of spiritual experiences. The expressions 
of it that are not Jewish or peculiar, give us constant as- 
sistance in prayer and in praise." 

Again, I quote Dr. W.: " Although there are many 



SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 121 

gone before me who have taught the Hebrew Psalmist to 
speak English, (translators,) yet I think I may assume 
this pleasure, of being the first who hath brought down 
the royal author into the common affairs of the Christian 
(in opposition to Jewish) life, and led the Psalmist of 
Israel into the church of Christ without anything of a 
Jew about him." " My design was that the Jewish 
Psalmist should plainly appear, yet leave Judaism be- 
hind." 

Another quotation from Dr. Watts : " I confess it is not 
unlawful nor absurd for a person of knowledge and skill 
to sing any part of the Jewish Psalm book, and consider 
it merely as the word of God, from which, by wise medi- 
tation, he may draw some inferences for his own use. 
But when the words are obscure Hebraisms, or the poet 
personates a Jew, a soldier, or a king, speaking to him- 
self or to God, this mode of instruction in a song seems 
not so natural or easy, even to the most skillful Christian, 
and it is almost impracticable to the greatest part of 
mankind." Dr. W. is here explaining one chief princi- 
ple in the formation of his system of Psalmody, and in- 
stead of proposing an " impious rejection of the Psalms," 
he assigns a most forcible and conclusive reason for the 
practice of " explaining the Psalm," before the congre- 
gation sing it. 

I repeat, therefore, the man who could indite these and 
scores of similar paragraphs, must have been destitute of 
common sense, if in the same connections he could u bit- 
terly libel" the precious book of Psalms. But as this is 
the most effective, certainly the most popular, of all the 
arguments of our opposing brethren, we defer some other 
illustrations of the treatment they give Dr. Watts to our 
closing Letter, No. XIV. 

Let us now attend to some objections to our theory of 
Psalmody : 

1. It is objected that "following Dr. Watts, we omit 
some parts of the book of Psalms." Very true. Our 
principle is that " the whole word of God is of use to 
11 



122 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

direct us " in praise as well as u in prayer. " We regard 
some parts of the New Testament as suitable for praise. 
But what shall we say of Rouse's omissions, for example, 
the 20th verse of the 72d Psalm, and the greater part 
of the titles or inscriptions, which Home and other 
standard writers admit to be parts of the inspired text, 
as really as the first verses of Isaiah and the Epistle to 
the Ephesians. You profess to regard the Psalms as 
" the inspired Psalter," given precisely in sum and sub- 
stance as Divine Wisdom saw best, for purposes of 
praise — and yet you venture to make these improvements 
upon " God's Psalm book " — to reject a part of the Holy 
Scriptures, &c! 

Again : In his preface to the recent " improved ver- 
sion," published under direction of a committee of the 
Associate or Seceder church, Dr. Beveridge says : " In a 
few instances things omitted in our version (Bouse) have 
been restored. See, for example, Psalm 31:11; 
Psalm 37 : 35, 36 5 Psalm 62 : 1-5 ; Psalm 78 : 21 ; . 
Psalm 128 : 2, 3." Here is the same dilemma. Pro- 
fessing to regard the one hundred and fifty Psalms as 
exclusively " God's Psalter," indited for this very pur- 
pose by the Infinite Mind and " appointed as the Psalmo- 
dy of the church," as Dr. Pressly says, " in which God 
teaches his church how to praise," you dare to tamper 
with God's work ; by omitting parts of God's teaching, 
you thus destroy the Divine completeness of the Psalm 
book composed and appointed by Infinite Wisdom ! 

On the principle adopted by these brethren, to omit 
any part of the book of Psalms is to pretend to be tviser 
than God, who gave it all to be the Psalm book of the 
church; and is nothing short of the impiety which 
" takes away from the word of God." We reject this 
view of the subject, believing that God has given his 
" whole word to direct us in praise " — and therefore we 
are no more obliged to sing every part of the Psalms, 
than to sing every other part of the inspired records. But 
this plea offers no excuse for these brethren's "omissions." 



SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 123 

A parallel case is this: "All Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, 
instruction in righteousness." The reading of these 
Scriptures from the pulpit, is an ordinance of God as 
really as public praise. But are there not portions of 
the inspired writings which no man of common sense 
ever dares to read to the people ? Why ? Those parts 
of God's blessed word are not suitable to be read public- 
ly, though anciently read in the synagogues — in that 
way they are not profitable for instruction in righteous- 
ness. Let any minister rise in the sacred desk and read, 
for example, some parts of the Levitical law — how many 
hearers would he have on the next Sabbath ? How soon 
would he be called to account by his Presbytery, as lack- 
ing common sense ! But does any one ever dream of 
this being an impious attempt to be wiser than God? 
Apply the same reasoning to the whole word of God con- 
sidered as of use to direct us in praise as well as in 
prayer and reading — and everything is clear. And the 
same reasoning holds good in regard to the ordinance of 
preaching. Is not the whole inspired volume of use to 
direct us in this service ? But there are certain texts 
which none but a fool would ever make the foundation 
of a sermon. Now in omitting certain parts of the 
Psalms as less suitable for praise than some other parts 
of the inspired volume outside of that book, we offer no 
reproach to any part of God's word, but do equal honor 
to all portions of the Divine volume, designed as they 
were for different uses in the church. If, indeed, there 
were any "Divine precept" to sing every jot and tittle 
of the Psalms, we would do it. So if there were a scrip- 
tural command to read publicly every text of the Bible, 
we would do that too ! 

2. It is objected that our system involves the daring 
implication, "that a mere man is able to improve ' God's 
Psalm book,' and 'to write better than the Holy Spirit.' " 

This objection comes with a bad grace from those who 



124 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

use " Rouse's paraphrase," with all its errors, omissions, 
additions, explanations, &c. For example : 

" I like an owl in desert am, 
Which nightly there doth moan." 

The second line is a mere human improvement, an expla- 
nation (whether right or wrong) of what the Psalmist 
meant. Scores of these improvements, as we have al- 
ready shown, are found in Rouse — therefore it follows 
that these brethren have thought they " could write bet- 
ter than the Holy Spirit V Or at least they have 
attempted to improve upon "God's Psalm book." 

3. Another objection: "You Presbyterians do not 
sing the word of God." But is Rouse the pure word of 
God ? Is the second line above quoted found among 
"the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth ?" There is 
an important scriptural sense, however, agreeably to 
which a large part of our Psalmody is "the word of 
God 9 * — the sense in which Paul uses these terms when 
he exhorts, " Preach the word." Compare the method 
we adopt, with some other parts of Divine worship : 
Does the able lecturer on large passages of Scripture, 
preach the word of God ? Does the minister who ex- 
plains the Psalms teach the word of God ? True, it 
is sometimes transposed, to increase the light to our 
feeble vision ; sometimes too the preacher selects particu- 
lar sections \ sometimes when the same idea occurs fre- 
quently, he groups the verses together. At other times 
he will group texts from remote parts of the Bible, as the 
ground work of a particular sermon, and adduce his 
proofs and illustration from every accessible source of 
Holy Writ. Still this does not make it less " the 
word of God." So we say of the system of Psalmody 
used by the Presbyterian church. Dr. Watts has grouped 
with the Psalms much of the thought and language of 
the New Testament, but this mixture does not make it 
less truly "the word of God." We do not mean that the 
two things are in all respects the same or exactly paral- 



SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 125 

lei, but in this particular point they are the same in prin- 
ciple. If then the sound minister "preaches the word 
in season, out of season/' on the same principle we sing 
the word of God. If the same minister in explaining 
the Psalm, gives a correct interpretation, and teaches 
"the word of God," and the people sing with this ex- 
planation fresh in their minds, and forming the sentiments 
of their hearts; with equal certainty do we worship in 
the use of "the word of God." The language is but 
sound — the worship is the utterance of the sentiments 
of the heart. If these latter are acceptable to God, 
because agreeable to Divine teaching, the worship is "in 
spirit and in truth/' whether we sing the prose of the 
English translation of the Scriptures or poetry arranged 
by an uninspired man (Rouse), or an "imitation" in 
which "David (i. e., his inspired sentiments) plainly 
appears," and types and shadows, bullocks, burnt offer- 
ings, trumpets, cornets, dances, &c, dissolve amid the 
blessed and transforming light of the gospel. 

We do not plead that our system of Psalmody is per- 
fect. Particular examples may possibly be adduced in 
which the great " principle" adopted by Dr. Watts, viz. 
" to make David (his inspired sentiments) plainly to ap- 
pear" is imperfectly developed. But there are also gross 
errors in Rouse. Dr. Dwight has supplied the Psalms 
omitted by Dr. Watts ; and if in a few others, certain 
parts are omitted, they no more vitiate the whole system 
than Rouse's blunders vitiate that used by our brethren. 
If any serious departures from our principle are discov- 
ered in our system, it is the province of our General 
Assembly to supply the defect. 

In both systems it can be demonstrated that there is a 
number of Psalms which approach so near " a correct 
and literal version" of the original, as to entitle them to 
be regarded as " inspired songs of praise" — but it is no 
less true that, to a great extent, both Rouse and Watts 
are neither more nor less than " paraphrases." The one 
may be more or less paraphrastio than the other; but 
11* 



126 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

that alters not the principle. He that strains at Watts, 
while he readily swallows Rouse, will not be suspected 
of great consistency. 

4. Fourth objection. The Presbyterian principle in 
Psalmody " tends to make the mind indifferent to the 
claims of inspiration." We maintain " that all Scripture 
being given by inspiration of God/' it is lawful to sing 
any suitable part of it, whether of the Old or New Testa- 
ment; and that the church has a Divine warrant for 
drawing the subjects of her praise from other parts of the 
word of God. Consequently, that she may and ought to 
derive much of her praise from the inspired writers of 
the New Testament, which has so much more clearly re- 
vealed the character, offices and work of Christ. 

Now can any intelligent Christian inform us how such 
a " principle" tends to make men infidels ? Instead of 
some things descriptive of Jewish rites and ceremonies 
now abolished and forbidden, events in some of the Jew- 
ish wars, (see Home, Dr. Scott and others,) prayers for 
the destruction of the enemies of David as the king of the 
Jews, (see the commentators,) and some other matters of 
this kind which were highly appropriate to the Jews, but 
which probably would never have been thought of as 
literal matter of praise in the New Testament church, 
if found in any other part of the Holy Scriptures — in- 
stead of these we feel authorized by the word of God to 
sing the songs of Mary, Anna, Simeon, " the heavenly 
host," and in fine any suitable part of the New Testa- 
ment. In addition, therefore, to the Psalms, we rejoice to 
praise God in the use of several hundred hymns, em- 
bracing the chief instructions delivered by the Blessed 
Redeemer and his apostles. 

Would to God the whole world were full of such infi- 
delity as this ! We are perfectly sure that there is a 
much stronger tendency toward loose, infidel conceptions 
in another quarter. When ministers of the gospel speak 
of "Rouse's paraphrase" as the "inspired Psalms," 
" the very songs which God has given," " God's Psalm 



SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 127 

book/' &c., it is an abuse of language leading directly 
to false and heretical views of inspiration, and accustom- 
ing the people to the low Socinian conceptions of Belsham 
and others, by applying that term to the patchwork of 
Rouse and others. This is a serious evil; nor does it 
" lean to virtue's side/' but to the side of a most danger* 
ous soul destroying heresy. If you teach the people to re* 
gard " Rouse's paraphrase" as the inspired Psalms, it 
would be quite easy for them to go a step further, and 
receive the doctrines of Priestly and his Unitarian fol- 
lowers. 

It has been proved that Rouse's paraphrases are 
inspired just as the pulpit explanations at your morning 
service. We do not say this of a goodly number of 
his Psalms, which are quite closely and accurately versi- 
fied, but only of his numerous paraphrases; and to speak 
of these as " the inspired Psalms," is to confound all distinc- 
tion between that which is inspired and that which is un- 
inspired — between human and Divine. Our brethren 
should look at home, when they inquire after tendencies 
to reject the doctrine of Divine inspiration. 

5. Fifth objection. " In the exclusive use of the one 
hundred and fifty Psalms we may be confident of singing 
the truth, and of praising God with sentiments suitable 
and acceptable to Him." Let us test this statement. 
We go to the Synod of Ulster, Ireland, as it was some 
years since, where nothing but the one hundred and fifty- 
Psalms were used, and when the heresy of Arianism had 
well nigh swallowed up all the churches. We enter one 
of these Arian establishments. The minister rises and 
explains the second Psalm, informing the people that 
God's " only Son," his " anointed," is a mere creature 
of a very high order; that to " perish from the way/' 
does not mean auy thing more than some temporal evil, 
that hell is an Eastern fable, &c. With this explana- 
tion fresh in their minds, the congregation sing the 
Psalm. Do they " praise God with sentiments suitable 
and acceptable to Him?" In what correct sense do they 



128 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

even "sing the truth." Their lips may utter the lan- 
guage of truth, but their hearts are filled with a subtle 
and soul destroying heresy. With their lips and lan- 
guage, they u draw nigh to God;" but what does the 
heart utter before Him — the answer is, falsehood and 
impiety. 

It will not be pretended that even if our brethren 
sung the prose in our Bibles, the naked words would con- 
stitute " the truth." The truth is the Divine sentiment, 
the thought, not the verbiage. Then what is the sentiment 
of an Arian, who has just received and believes the u ex- 
planation" of his Arian pastor? Surely not the truth, 
but heresy, however correct the words which flow from 
his lips. So too the Jews in their synagogues sing the 
Psalms of David, the second among the rest. Do they 
too sing the truth, while cursing the Lord Jesus in their 
heart? We admit that it is no objection to any part of 
the Old Testament that it is read or sung by Jews and 
Arians. All that we now contend for is, that the fact 
of their thus reading or singing is no certain evidence 
that as it is explained to them, they either read or sing 
{t the truth." They may read the icords which contain 
the truth — but so do men often " draw nigh to God with 
their lips, while their heart is far from him." And we may 
safely affirm, that neither Arian nor Jew could be per- 
suaded to join with the Presbyterians in singing these 
verses of Dr. Watts' paraphrase of the 2d Psalm : 

The things so long foretold 

By David, are fulfilled : 

When Jews and Gentiles join to slay 

Jesus, thine holy Child ! 

I call him my eternal Son, 
And raise him from the dead; 
I make my holy hill his throne, 
And wide his kingdom spread. 

Be wise, ye rulers of the earth, 
Obey the anointed Lord ; 
Adore the King of heavenly birth, 
And tremble at his word. 



SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 129 



Or this, 



Or this, 



Jesus, my God, thy blood alone 
Hath power sufficient to atone. 
Thy blood can make me white as snow j 
No Jewish types could cleanse me so. 

Aside the Prince of glory threw 
His most Divine array, 
And wrapped his God-head in a veil 
Of our inferior clay. 

Presbyterians maintain that the Psalmody of the 
Christian church, like all her other institutions, should 
reflect the light of the New Testament, which no Jew 
will take into his hands, except to spit upon it. Why 
so ? Because it so clearly reveals " Christ and his 
cross. " It is not denied that good men have often com- 
muned with their Saviour in the Psalms — so they have 
found him in innumerable forms of the Levitical law. 
But that does not prove that in New Testament worship, 
all further light is needless ! What would be thought 
of the preaching and the public prayers, which, in the 
absence of other evidence, would leave a stranger habit- 
ually in doubt whether he sat in the presence of Chris- 
tians or Jews ? Yet just so is it in public praise with 
the Old Testament Psalms, except as their " explana- 
nation" alters the case. We admit that there is much 
of Christ in them, and so was there in the Levitical sac- 
rifices as types of " the Lamb of God/' But does that 
prove that in either case the far brighter displays of Di- 
vine love and mercy under the gospel are needless to the 
church in her forms of public praise ? No more than it 
proves them useless in preaching and prayer. 

Suppose it should be truly reported of all the ministers 
who use exclusively the Old Testament Psalms, that their 
preaching and public prayers give no " testimony" such 
as would offend an Arian, or even a Jew, in regard to the 
Divinity and Messiahship of Christ. Would such a re- 
putation be considered a compliment? What Christian 
church would seek for such pastors ? Yet that very cir- 



130 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

cumstance, which would expose their preaching and 
prayers to the rebuke of Paul, viz. that their u trumpet 
gives an uncertain sound " — this very deficiency which 
would exclude them from Christian pulpits, is found in their 
system of praise ! The Arians of Ulster and the Jews 
everywhere gladly hold fellowship with them in the or- 
dinance of praise, at least as often as they sing without 
a pulpit " explanation/' Can this be the method in 
which the Lord Jesus requires us to " confess him be- 
fore men ? ■' And this argument has special force 
against those who think it necessary to prepare and pub- 
lish a pamphlet " Testimony" against their Presbyterian 
brethren — against " views and practices" which, they 
say, "demand of them such * testimony' as witnesses for 
the truth ! " And yet, in five parts out of every six of 
all their public praise, their " trumpet gives so uncertain 
a sound/' their testimony for important truth is so fee- 
ble, that Jews and Arians hold communion with them ! 
Is there not great inconsistency and error here ? 

It is no valid objection to this reasoning, that Arians 
and Jews pervert in like manner the whole Bible. The 
Jew indeed hates the New Testament, because it is so full 
of the cross — but he receives the Old Testament. The 
Arian professes some sort of faith in both Testaments. 
But such i;. the blindness and wickedness of man, that 
even God's word, as it has pleased its glorious Author to 
give it to mankind, is found insufficient to exclude error 
from his church. Hence nearly all denominations form 
creeds and confessions of faith as a remedy for resulting 
evils, and our brethren add a formal " Testimony" to the 
Holy Scriptures and their Confession, to testify for the 
truth as they hold it. 

Now why is all this ? Obviously that they as " faith- 
ful witnesses for the truth," may make an open and in- 
telligible protest against error, which they admit could 
not be done by simply taking the Bible, " the perfect 
law of God," as their creed and " Testimony." And 
what is the object of their preaching and their "expla- 



SOME OBJECTION ANSWERED. 131 

nations" of the Psalms J Plainly that they may be " va- 
liant for the truth in the earth. " The Bible, they con- 
cede, needs all these varied ministrations and helps, in 
order that error may be excluded and pure religion make 
progress, and finally and universally triumph. Yea, the 
Bible, God's perfect law, makes these additional minis- 
trations of creeds, preaching, &c, a solemn duty. And 
by these methods the Arian and other soul destroying 
heresies are banished from the church. Thus in their 
creeds and testimonies, in reading and expounding the 
Scriptures and in public prayer, these brethren clearly 
and distinctly lift up a banner for the truth as they 
view it. 

But there is one strange exception ! In five parts of 
every six of their public praise, they are found deficient 
in testifying for the truth ! Their trumpet gives "so un- 
certain a sound " that the Jew and the Arian can hold 
fellowship with them ! While they lift up their voices 
together, in five-sixths of their public praise it is impos- 
sible to tell which is the Jew and which the Christian ! 
The Jew, though bitterly hating Christ, joins in worship 
with the Christian, and finds nothing to offend him — the 
Arian, too, unites cheerfully in a worship which allows 
him to regard "God's own Son" only as an "exalted 
creature !" In five parts of every six, they praise God 
every Sabbath, in strains to which neither Jews nor 
Arians object ! These brethren do not thus preach the 
gospel — they are not thus defective in other ministrations, 
such as the public exposition of the Scriptures and prayer. 
It is only in the ascription of praise that their " confes- 
sion of the name of the Lord Jesus" is so indistinct, 
their trumpet gives so uncertain a sound, that the grossest 
errorists harmonize with the friends of the gospel. Can 
this be the sort of " testimony " which the blessed Sa- 
viour requires of them that offer praise ? 

It is idle to allege that we are "speaking reproachfully 
of the book of Psalms." Nothing is farther from the 
truth. We are saying of that admirable book precisely 



132 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

what you, by your creed and " Testimony ," say of the 
whole Bible, viz. that it demands of the church certain 
additional explanatory forms of " witnessing for the 
truth/' as bonds of harmony and tests of soundness in the 
faith, as well as ramparts against heresy. As a very pre- 
cious portion of the holy oracles \ as in part the text-book 
of the ministry; as an invaluable source of "learning," 
and comfort of the Scriptures, &c, the Psalms, like the 
whole Bible, are precisely what they ought to be, most 
excellent productions of Infinite Wisdom. But believing, 
as we do, the church to be u the pillar and ground of the 
truth" she is bound to confess Christ just as plainly and 
unequivocally in praise, as in preaching and prayer ; and 
we, therefore, deny that "the book of Psalms" was de- 
signed by its Divine Author, especially in its literal and 
naked form, to be the only and all-sufficient volume of 
praise. And yet there are those, strange to tell, yea, 
ministers of the gospel, who boast of the anti- sectarian 
character of "Rouse's paraphrase," because, forsooth, 
Jews, Mormons, Unitarians, &c, can unite in singing it ! 

6. A sixth objection. "We dare not sing l human 
composition ' in the worship of God." Well, if any one 
can really persuade himself that dozens of "Rouse's par- 
aphrases" are "inspired composition," we shall not 
attempt to reason with him. All who use Rouse are ne- 
cessarily guilty of this sin. 

7. "If some parts of the Psalms are unsuitable for 
praise, they are not fit to be read." 

It is not necessary to pronounce any parts of the 
Psalms absolutely, and under all circumstances, unfit to 
be sung. Our doctrine is, that some portions of that 
book are less suitable to be sung under the present dispen- 
sation, than many other parts of the holy oracles. But 
do not our brethren maintain that large parts of both 
Testaments are unsuitable for public praise ? Take the 
first chapter of 1st Chronicles — " Adam, Sheth, Enosh," 
&c. They will concede that this is not fit for public 
praise, and so of other whole books, except the one hundred 



DEFENSE OF SCRIPTURAL HYMNS. 133 

and fifty Psalms. Are they therefore unfit to be read ? 
Certainly God may speak to us in language which we 
may not speak to him. 

8. "The ' imitation' by Dr. Watts, is not much more 
of an imitation of the Psalms, than Young's Night 
Thoughts, or Pollok's Course of Time/' This extraor- 
dinary assertion has been deliberately printed and circu- 
lated, in at least three different forms within a few years. 
It furnishes a sad illustration of the extreme folly to 
which the furor of controversy will sometimes hurry 
otherwise serious and true men. 

Having now finished all that I deemed necessary to 
vindicate Presbyterian usages in regard to the book of 
Psalms, in my next I propose to speak of "the other 
songs of Scripture," which our brethren call "corrup- 
tions of the ordinance of God/' when sung in public and 
private worship. 



LETTEE XI. 

HYMNS — THE HISTORY OF " OTHER SONGS OF SCRIPTURE " — USAGES 
OF MOST OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCHES, VIZ.: 2,800 TO 30 — ACTION 

OF THE EARLY FATHERS OF THE ASSOCIATE REFORMED CHURCH 

DR. m'mASTER'S SENTIMENTS PRESENT YIETYS OF DRS. KERR AND 

PRESSLY A GLANCE AT THE LEGITIMATE RESULTS A LARGE 

PART OF DR. WATTS' HYMNS ARE FAIR PARAPHRASES OF PORTIONS 
OF THE INSPIRED RECORD, AND NO MORE "HUMAN COMPOSITION" 
THAN ROUSE DEFENSE OF THE REMAINDER. 

My Dear Sir : — Before proceeding to discuss the 
merits of that large department of our Psalmody, viz. 
"the other scriptural songs," &c, a glance at the history 
of the subject may tend to its better elucidation In a 
former Letter reference was made to the directions given 
by the Scottish General Assembly of 1647, to "Zachary 
Boyd to translate the other scriptural songs in metre, 
* * * that after examination they may send the same 
to the Presbyteries." In 1648, " Master John Adam- 
12 



134 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

son and Mr. Thomas Crawford were directed to revise the 
labors of Zachary Boyd upon the other scriptural songs, 
* * * that after examination the same may be report- 
ed to the next General Assembly." In 1649, the As- 
sembly ordered their commission for public affairs "to 
emit (Rouse's) paraphrase of the Psalms for public use;" 
but the labors of Z. Boyd do not seem have been author- 
ized ; and it is no matter of surprise. They appear to 
have possessed very small poetical merit. This history, 
however, clearly demonstrates that the Scottish Assembly 
even at that early day, were desirous of some improve- 
ment and extension of their Psalmody. Nor do they 
seem to have had any fear of committing a certain great 
sin ! 

Accordingly at a later date, that venerable church au- 
thorized and constantly prints in her Bibles, what she 
calls "translations and paraphrases of several passages 
of Scripture." They are seventy-two in number, the last 
five, however, being pure "hymns of human composition," 
not even professing to be founded on a passage of Holy 
Writ. These additions to "Rouse's paraphrase " are com- 
monly annexed to the Psalms in inetre, at the end of the 
Bible. 

When the "Free church of Scotland " separated from 
the Establishment, they made no change in Psalmody. 
Accordingly, at the solemn funeral services of their As- 
sembly in May, 1847, on occasion of the death of Dr. 
Chalmers, "the proceedings were commenced by the 
Moderator giving out the last three verses of the 53d 
paraphrase," not a Psalm of David : 

" The saints of God from death set free, 
With joy shall mount on high," &c. 

Some of our brethren in this quarter, of course condemn 
such "an impious preference of an English poet over 
David" as tending to infidelity. In truth, these "trans- 
lations and paraphrases " are mere hymns, for the most 
part founded on a passage of Scripture. Dr. Watts com- 
posed a number of them. 



DEFENSE OF SCRIPTURAL HYMNS. 135 

In regard to the extent to which "the use of other pro- 
ductions than the Psalms " is carried in the churches of 
Scotland, the following statement has been handed to the 
author by two gentlemen of great intelligence, and who 
are minutely familiar from personal knowledge, with the 
ecclesiastical usages in that country. It may be added 
that these figures refer to the year 1852. Probably some 
change may have occurred since that period. They say : 
"There are in Scotland one thousand three hundred con- 
gregations of the Established church, all of which make 
use of hymns and paraphrases, selected from the devo- 
tional poetry of Dr. Watts and others. There are eight 
hundred congregations of the Free church, all of which 
have the same practice. There are seven hundred con- 
gregations of the United Presbyterian church, and the 
same is their uniform practice. All of these do, how- 
ever, make use of Rouse's versification of the Psalms. 
There is now no other body of Presbyterians than the 
above mentioned, except the Covenanters, and these con- 
gist of about thirty congregations, and even these do not 
all adopt the exclusive views." So that the proportion 
against the exclusive use of the Psalms of David, is as 
two thousand eight hundred to thirty. 

One of the denominations referred to, is called the 
"United Presbyterian church of Scotland/' It was 
formed by a union of the orthodox part of the Synod of 
Ulster (which had ejected the Arians,) with the Seces- 
sion church. In September, 1847, we were told by the 
editor* of the "Preacher" of Pittsburgh, "that while 
the Arians departed farther and farther from a Scripture 
Psalmody, the orthodox of the Synod of Ulster became 
more and more attached and confined to the inspired 
Psalms, until the time of their union with the Secession 
church." 

And again, by the same authority: "It is true, the 
exclusive use of the book of Psalms was not made a 
term of communion in the United church; but her testi- 
* Rev. Dr. Kerr. 



136 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

vnony as a church, was in favor of the Psalms exclusive 
ly, the use of paraphrases being regarded then, as it is yet, 
a matter of toleration." 

But our brethren are not always accurate in matters 
of this sort. We have had in our possession for several 
years, the "Hymn book of the United Presbyterian 
church," issued in Edinburgh. It consists of nearly five 
hundred songs of praise, and bears on the title page 
that old apostolic proof-text in favor of New Testament 
Psalmody, viz. "In psalms and hymns and spiritual 
songs, singing and making melody in your heart." 
Ephesians 5 : 19. One hundred and thirty -five of these 
hymns are the same with those in our Presbyterian sys- 
tem. About seventy are from the pen of Dr. Watts; 
and although this church retains House, she has para- 
phrased one hundred and sixty-five passages of the old 
Psalms among her hymns ! Could her testimony have 
been stronger in favor of the necessity of New Testa- 
ment improvements in the matter of praise ? Could it 
have been stronger against "the Psalms exclusively?" 
And the worst feature of the thing is, these children of 
the land of orthodoxy and Bible truth, though retaining 
the " paraphrase of Bouse," have repeated in the form 
of very hose paraphrase, one hundred and sixty-five se- 
lections from the old Psalms : for what purpose ? Why 
do they give a second time these portions of the "in- 
spired songs?" Why obliterate the order and connection 
in which the Holy Spirit placed them? Our exclusive 
brethren have an answer ready at hand — because, as we 
suppose, like the Old School church, these Scottish Pres- 
byterians " think they can write better than David I" 
We are certainly found in excellent company. The ex- 
clusive principle, at least, hardly "finds rest for the sole 
of its foot" in the land of Knox, Hamilton, Chalmers, 
and others of the true Presbyterian nobility. 

In this country, too, as early as 1787, in an extended 
"overture" prepared by a committee of the Associate 
Keformed General Synod, (at Philadelphia, May 16,) and 



DEFENSE OF SCRIPTURAL HYMNS. 137 

consisting of Dr. John Mason, Robert Annan and John 
Smith, there occurred the following utterances on this 
subject: ;, We are extremely sorry to have observed a 
growing disrelish, in some churches, for the Psalms of 
David and other songs of Scripture. * * * And we do 
not mean to say, that hymns of human composition may 
not be lawfully used in any case whatever." This " over- 
ture " was written by Rev. R. Annan,* and we have per- 
sonal knowledge that in his latter years he did not hold 
the exclusive views. 

Twenty three years later (1810) the same Synod of the 
Associate Reformed church received "the report of a 
committee," in which they speak of the "very critical 
condition of a large section of their body, arising from 
the unpopularity of our present version (Rouse's) of the 
Psalms. * * From Washington northward," they say, 
"our present version is the chief obstacle to our prosperi- 
ty, * * * and our social praise languishes and is ready 
to die. * * * Either the rising generation will take the 
reform into their own hands, and then there will be no 
computing the disasters of such a precedent; or our 
churches will be swept entirely away." The remedy pro- 
posed by the committee, was "an improved version of 
scriptural Psalmody." Observe, they do not say, " an 
improved version of David's Psalms," but "of scriptural 
Psalmody" — probably designing to include the other 
songs and suitable parts of Scripture. These dissatis- 
factions have never entirely ceased in that denomination, 
and no doubt formed one of the reasons why so many of 
her ministers and members have sought refuge in the 
bosom of the Presbyterian church. There was no action 

* This was the honored father of the writer — and as his name is of- 
ten referred to in this controversy, we take pleasure in quoting from 
the Life of Dr. J. M. Mason the following extract from a letter by Dr. 
E. Dickey. He says, in referring to the proposed union between the 
Associate Reformed and the General Assembly: "It is the opinion of 
Mr. Annan, which he has openly expressed and frequently to me in 
private conversation, that such a thing (viz. the union) ought to be 
brought about," This was as early as 1S02. p. 420. 
12* 



138 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

on the above report to the Synod, though the subject ori- 
ginated in a petition from the people, and was from highly 
respectable sources. It is well known, however, that 
some years later, the majority of the Associate Reformed 
Synod united with the Presbyterian body, thus fulfilling 
the earnest desire of one who has always been viewed as 
a chief instrument in originating the Associate Reformed 
church. * 

The history of our own times is equally instructive. 
In 1852 the late venerable Dr. M'Master published the 
fourth edition of his " Apology for the book of Psalms/' 
He was an honored and influential minister of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian body, or Covenanters. Though he 
and his brethren had, as a matter of expediency, pro- 
hibited by express rule the use in their churches of any 
but the "Psalms of David/' he uttered at the close of his 
book, and near the close of his life, the following senti- 
ments : — u If the church authorize it, collect from the 
books of inspiration at large, a volume or volumes of 
poetic matter, in prose or verse, leaving her ministers 
and people to use or not to use it/' 

Again, says Dr. M'Master, " When the sources of in- 
spired poetry are exhausted * * * * let the church 
in council, endeavor to ascertain what may be necessary, 
safe, or advisable to do/' &c. Dr. M'Master wished to 
retain a version of the Psalms, but had no objection to 
other songs of praise. 

These are certainly liberal sentiments — worthy of the 
head and heart of their author. And we have reason to 
know that they still express the views of a large number, 
perhaps all, of the (New School) ministers and mem- 
bership of that body. They show that the idea of the 
exclusive use of David's Psalms has but feeble hold upon 
the understanding and hearts of that respected denomi- 
nation. 

We are glad to be able to state further, that the discus- 
sions of some years past appear to have had a favorable 
influence upon the minds of prominent ministers of the 



DEFENSE OF SCRIPTURAL HYMNS. 139 

Associate Reformed church, now united with the Sece- 
ders. Some years ago, the two brethren of that body 
who have written most on the subject, assumed such po- 
sitions aa these — "It is the will of G-od that the son^s 
contained in the book of Psalms be sung in his worship 
to the end of time, and we have no authority to use any 
other/' * "And those who depart from this appointment, 
are seriously corrupting one of the most interesting and 
important ordinances of God." f But in subsequent: 
publications the tone of these assumptions appears much 
subdued. We then are told that if the principle of in- 
spired Psalmody exclusively be held, "the difference of 
opinion about the use of any song of praise contained in 
the Bible" is " not of such a nature as should disturb 
the peace of the church." \ Again, we are told, " the 
difference (between the churches of Scotland and the As- 
sociate Eeformed church) is comparatively small, and 
would never in all probability have disturbed the peace 
of the church." Thus observe the change of sentiment 
in a few years. In the former case it reads, the use of 
any but David's Psalms " seriously corrupts one of the 
most important ordinances of God;" but in the latter 
" the difference is so SMALL AS NOT TO DISTURB THE 
peace of the church." We are happy to hail this 
shifting of original positions, and apparent movement 
toward the large scriptural ground of the Presbyterian 
church. § In fact our brother of the " Preacher" here gives 
up the chief debatable ground in regard to evangelical 
hymns of "human composition." The five such hymns, no 
less than the sixty-five " paraphrases" sung by the Free 
and Established churches of Scotland, are included in his 

* Dr. Pressly, quoted by Ralston, p. 46. 

f Preacher, by Dr. Kerr. June 9, 1847. 

X Pressly on Psalmody, p. 88. 

|| Preacher, by Dr. Kerr, September, 1852. 

\ A writer in the Dae West Telescope, the organ of the Asso- 
ciate Reformed Synod of the South, says (March, 1854): " Nor do ice 
olject to certifying other portions of the Scriptures and using them in the 
tcorvhijj of God," 



140 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

admission as stated above. The principle, of course, is 
the same as though they were five or fifty times that 
number. Yet he says, " the difference is comparatively 
small" — " should not disturb the peace of the church/' 
The first lines of these five Scottish hymns are as fol- 
lows : 

When all thy mercies, my God ! 
The spacious firmament on high. 
When rising from the bed of death. 
Blessed morning ! whose first dawning rays. 
The "hour of my departure 's come. 

The first three are from the pen of Addison, and one 
of the others, we believe, from Dr. Watts. They are, in 
the broadest sense, " mere human compositions." 

It would appear then from these concessions, that whilst 
one of these brethren will "not disturb the peace of the 
church" by opposing the use of any song of praise con- 
tained in the Bible ;" the other, Rev. Dr. Kerr, editor of 
the " Preacher," goes much farther than "the songs of the 
Bible." He pleads for peace in regard to all such evan- 
gelical "human compositions" as the forementioned, by 
Addison and Dr. Watts. " The difference" he says, 
"is comparatively small, and should not disturb the 
peace of the church." He will never quarrel with the 
Scottish churches for singing any such hymns of an evan- 
gelical character. They are small matters, not worth 
contending about over there in the land of Knox. But 
if this be so, why does he denounce these " human com- 
positions" so bitterly, when they are found in our collec- 
tion ? We cannot search the heart for all the reasons 
which he and his brethren have for their great partiality 
toward hymn-singing Scotland. The avowed reason, 
however, we understand to be this, that we hymn-singing 
Americans " impiously reject the songs which God has 
given" and substitute Dr. Watts' productions in their 
place— -or, in plainer language, we sing Watts' "para- 
phrase" instead of " Rouse's paraphrase." In other 
words, we Presbyterians treat " the Psalms" so badly, 



DEFENSE OF SCRIPTURAL HYMNS. 141 

that the very hymns which are quite tolerable in Scotland, 
must ue resisted on this side of the great water. 

The consistent'?/ of this leniency toward Scottish hymns 
of " mere human composition/' with other oft expressed 
sentiments of Dr. K. and his brethren, is a matter of 
minor concern. But from the foregoing induction, we 
feel authorized to put on distinct record the following 
propositions as conceded by these brethren, the first by 
Dr. P., the second by Dr. K., viz. : 

I. The use in Divine worship of any song of praise 
contained in any part of the Bible, should not disturb 
the peace of the church, provided the principle of " in- 
spired Psalmody" be preserved. 

II. The use of hymns of human composition, in the 
circumstances of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland, 
should not disturb the peace of the church. 

If, then, we have rightly understood the views of the 
brethren referred to, Dr. Pressly is ready to tolerate any 
of our hymns, provided it is "a song of the Holy 
Scriptures," and we hold his principle of " inspired Psal- 
mody." And Dr. Kerr will not disturb the peace by 
warring against any of our hymns, even though it be 
like the hymns of the Free church of Scotland, " mere 
human composition," provided we consent to sing 
" Rouse's paraphrase" along with the hynms. These are 
legitimate and gratifying inferences from the doctrines 
avowed by these brethren. On the conditions stated, 
the difference becomes " comparatively small," and should 
make no disturbance in the church. We would thus 
place ourselves in the same position with the churches of 
Scotland, whose hymns of u mere human composure," 
according to Dr. Kerr, are quite tolerable, certainly not 
worth contending about ! If we will only use House or 
other " inspired Psalmody," our " hymns of human com- 
position" will then become current with Dr. K. and his 
brethren equally with the* " mere human effusions" of 
the churches of Scotland ! V> r e are dad to find that our 



142 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

brethren have become so very tolerant toward such " se- 
rious corruptions of Divine worship." 

In the light of this brief history, we open the volume 
which contains the hymns used in the Old School Presby- 
terian church. And here the first thing that strikes us is, 
how large a proportion of these hymns are versified " songs 
of praise contained in the Bible." Of course, it follows, 
according to the judgment of one of these brethren, 
that " a difference of opinion" about the use of this 
whole class should not disturb the peace of the churchy 
provided we will sing Rouse's paraphrase, or other equally 
inspired system. Take the very first hymn in the order 
of Dr. Watts. It is a paraphrase of Revelation 5 : 6-12. 
We have room for only a few verses : 

And the four beasts and four Let elders worship at his feet, 

and twenty elders fell down be- The church adore around, 

fore the Lamb, having every one With vials full of odors sweet, 

of them harps, golden vials full And harps of sweeter sound. 
of odors. 

And they sung a new song, Now to the Lamb that once was 
* * "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, 

slain to receive power, and riches, Be endless blessings paid ; 

and wisdom, and strength, and Salvation, glory, joy remain 

honor, and glory, and blessing. For ever on thy head. 

Thou wast slain, and hast re- Thou hast redeemed our souls with 
deemed us to God by thy blood, blood, 
&g. Hast set the prisoners free, 

Hast made us kings and priests 

to God, 
And we shall reign with thee. 

The first book of Dr. Watts contains one hundred and 
fifty of these paraphrases of Scripture, which to a very 
large extent are as near to the original text as many 
portions of the paraphrases of Rouse. They are not all 
<• songs of praise," but many of them are, nor should 
they be allowed to u disturb the peace of the church." In 
speaking of these paraphrases of his first book, Dr. 
Watts says, "I have borrowed the sense and much of the 
form of the song from particular portions of Script are, 



DEFENSE OF SCRIPTURAL HYMNS. 143 

and have paraphrased most of the doxologies in the New 
Testament and many parts of the Old Testament also, 
that have a reference to the times of the Messiah/' 

Of his second book of one hundred and seventy pieces, 
Dr. W. says, " I might have brought some text (of Scrip- 
ture) and applied it to the margin of every verse, if this 
method had been as useful as it was easy." Still he 
candidly admits that the form of these hymns of book 
second, is of " mere human composure ; " meaning 
that the order and connection of the song are not found 
in the Bible. Here, also, we have the judgment of Dr. 
K. in our favor. These hymns are, to say the very 
least, not more entirely " human compositions" than those 
adopted by the Free and Established churches of Scot- 
land. Yet of these latter Dr. K. says, "their use in 
that country should not disturb the peace of the church." 
And by parity of reasoning in the Presbyterian church 
of this country, they ought not to be, on one condition, 
a source of contention or disturbance of the peace. At 
least eleven of these identical " human compositions" of 
Dr. Watts, are used by those Scottish churches, and Dr. 
K. assures us they " ought not to disturb the peace," 
provided Rouse be also used ; or at least some equally 
inspired versification. 

The same toleration is of course to be extended to the 
third book of Dr. Watts' hymns. It consists of forty- 
five pieces, of which the author says, " some are para- 
phrases of Scripture." They are intended especially to 
be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Not a 
solitary hymn can be found in the whole three books, 
that is more really " a mere human composition" than a 
number of those in the Scottish collection, and which 
Dr. K. says furnish in Scotland no sufficient cause for 
contention or breach of the peace. 

It appears, therefore, that the casus helli, the great 
source of the strife on the subject of Psalmody, accord- 
ing to Dr. K., is this : We Presbyterians "impiously re- 
ject the Psalms which God has given to be sung." But 



144 LETTERS OX PSALMODY. 

is this a correct statement? We deny it in toto ) for the 
following reasons : 

1. Our Supreme Judicatory has expressly authorized 
the Psalms in " Rouse's paraphrase" to be sung in all 
our churches. See the Act quoted in a former Letter. 
Is this the same as impiously rejecting them ? 

2. Our church, after careful revision and amendments 
made by the General Assembly, has also authorized the 
use of the Psalms in Dr. Watts' " paraphrase f and 
besides, she has recently printed in connection with it, 
fifty selections from Rouse. Is this rejecting " the 
Psalms ? " 

3. All our churches are at perfect liberty to use one 
or the other of these versifications at their pleasure. If 
every congregation in our connection were immediately 
to reject every thing but Rouse, they would only do 
what they are authorized to do by our highest ecclesias- 
tical court. 

And now, in the name of peace, how is this the same 
as "impiously rejecting the Psalms?" True, our con- 
gregations generally, of the two authorized " para- 
phrases," prefer Watts to Rouse — but even if the Gene- 
ral Assembly, instead of authorizing had expressly for- 
bidden Rouse's paraphrase, can any person really per- 
suade himself that this would be the same as "impiously 
rejecting the Psalms which God has given?" But 
they have not forbidden even that paraphrase, but 
given it their sanction. 

The same reasoning applies to all the other hymns 
in the Presbyterian collection, which are by other au- 
thors than Dr. W. The great mass of the verses are merely 
expanded texts of God's blessed Word. For example, 
Hymn 232 : 

Stretched on the cross the Saviour dies, Matthew 27 : 35. 

Hark ! his expiring groans arise; Matthew 27: 46. 

See how the sacred crimson tide Hebrews 9 : 14. 

Flows from his hands, his feet, his side. John 19 : 34. 

Whether such compositions as this deserve to be 



DEFENSE OF SCRIPTURAL HYMNS. 145 

stigmatized as "mere human inventions," is a question 
not difficult to decide. 

We have already shown that there is not a solitary in- 
stance in the New Testament of a Psalm of David being 
Ring. On the contrary, the apostles and brethren used 
the book of Psalms in quite another manner, in the two 
examples in which alone they appear to have employed 
them in social praise. The first case is Luke 19 : 38. 
The disciples assumed part of a verse from Psalm 118, 
but sung it with alterations to adapt it to their circum- 
stances. The other example is in Acts 4 : 24, where the 
beginning of the 2d Psalm is sung by Peter, John, and 
their company. You find there an addition of praise in 
the beginning — then a narration of what David spoke — 
then an application to Herod, Pontius Pilate, &c. — then 
they enlarge the matter of fact by considering the hand 
of God in it, and the song concludes with the breathing 
of their desires toward G-od for mercies most precisely 
suited to their day and duty ; and having sung, they went 
to prayer, and then preached with amazing success. 

We have here an inspired example of that identical 
use of the Psalms and of other inspired matter, which our 
church sanctions. It is an apostolic hymn, which no- 
where appears in David, and affords abundant warrant 
from " the Author of light and wisdom" for the hymns 
of the Presbyterian church. The apostles seem to have 
known nothing of the " Divine appointment" of " the 
sweet Psalmist of Israel," to that exclusive authority for 
the church in all ages. 

This apostolic example of grouping together parts of 
the Psalms with other inspired matter, is the very prin- 
ciple on which most of our hymns are arranged. Our 
brethren practice the same thing in preaching the gospel, 
expounding the Scriptures, " explaining the Psalms," 
and in prayer. It is by their own admission, perfectly 
right in every other part of worship. How, then, does it 
become a daring impiety in the matter of praise ? How 
13 



146 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

can the addition of a tune to a brief "explanation" of 
a Psalm, render it a solemn mockery of God ? 

In strong corroboration of these views, the visions of 
the book of Revelation distinctly point out the very style, 
sentiment and manner of the praises of the New Testa- 
ment church. Take for example, Revelation 5 : 9-14. 
Our soundest commentators inform us that John's visions 
in " heaven" shadowed forth the visible church on earth. 
Thus Dr. Scott, " These adoring praises were rendered by 
the representatives' of the church." " Thus the whole 
church, by its representatives, fell down and worshiped/ 9 
" These (especially the four and twenty elders) are gene- 
rally allowed to be the emblematic representatives of the 
whole church of God." They were engaged in worship- 
ing God and the Lamb. What do they sing? A Psalm 
of David ? No such thing. " Worthy is the Lamb 
that was slain." See the whole hymn in Revelation 
5 : 9-14. Several similar songs are found in the same 
book. If there were no other evidence in favor of our 
New Testament hymns, this would be conclusive. We 
cannot be wrong in singing the very hymns which the 
Spirit of prophecy dictated to " the beloved disciple," as 
the subject matter of the exalted praises of God's people 
in all future ages ; and especially since these hymns 
were communicated as the very essence and joy of the 
worship that employs the blest voices of redeemed spirits 
in the presence of God.* Men may denounce such 
songs as " corruptions," but they are not so esteemed in 
the world of glory. 

* u Though heavenis the scene of these visions, yet ***** the 
state of the church on earth is throughout particularly adverted to." 
Scott. 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR HYMNS. 147 



LETTER XII. 

EARLY USE OF HYMNS IN THE CHURCH — GLANCE AT EPHES. 5: 19 J 
COLOS. 3: 16 — AUTHORITY OF RALPH ERSKINE IN FAVOR OF OUR 

INTERPRETATION PRIMITIVE CHURCH, HER USAGE OBJECTIONS 

ANSWERED : " BOOK OF PSALMS PERFECT " — " NO COMMAND TO 

MAKE SONGS OF PRAISE " "SETTING ASIDE PARTS OF GOD*S 

WORD" "LEADS TO ALTERATION OF THE INSPIRED record" 

"HYMNS ENCOURAGE ERROR AND HERESY" "LEADS TO SCHISM 

AND DISCORD," &C. 

My Dear Sir : — The history of the early use of hymns, 
viz. songs of praise not found in the book of Psalms, 
affords some instructive lessons. 

Even in the inspired record of the life of Jesus, we 
find the author of the gospel by Mark employing a Greek 
word to express the singing of the Saviour and his disciples 
at the Passover and the Lord's Supper, which word, hum- 
nesantes, or having hymned or "sung a hymn," is not the 
common one to indicate the Psalms. In every place but 
one in the New Testament which refers beyond all doubt 
to "David's Psalms/' the word is psalmos, not humnos, or 
the corresponding verb. If, as is strenuously maintained 
by our brethren, the Saviour selected Psalms 113-118 
for this hymn, * it would have been more natural for 
Mark to employ the usual term to indicate that the 
Psalms were sung. We admit, however, that Josephus, 
the Jewish historian, applies the terms " hymns and 
songs " to the Bible Psalms. Antiquities 7 : 12, 3. And 
it is said that the Jews at the time of the Advent of 
Christ, were accustomed to sing the great Hallel (Psalms 
113-118,) at the celebration of the Passover. If this 
were so, it was an innovation on the original appoint- 
ment, which does not include singing. See the record, 
Exodus 12 : 1-28. Besides, the Hallel (or Psalms 113- 

* The Jews of that period, it is said, sung Psalms 113 and 114 before 
the Passover, and the others (115-118) after it. 



148 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

118,) was not composed for several hundred years after- 
ward. 

The question, however, whether the Lord Jesus sung a 
part of the book of Psalms in connection with the Pass- 
over, is of very small importance in this discussion. 
Admitting that he sung the Hallel — then if we were re- 
quired to observe the Jewish Passover, we should feel 
bound to copy his example, even in this particular, (as in 
circumcision,) in order, like him, "to fulfill all righteous- 
ness." But how does such an example decide for or 
against the dogma, which affirms the Hebrew Psalm book 
to be the only and universal Psalmody of all ages ? If 
Christ and his disciples sung a part of the Psalms, they 
did only what every sound Presbyterian joyfully and 
thankfully approves and copies — a privilege which he 
very highly appreciates. But to sing any other portion 
of the holy oracles — is that the same as " offering strange 
fire ?" There is the true point in debate. 

The term humnos, hymn, is found only twice in the 
New Testament, viz. in those well contested passages, 
Ephesians 5 : 19, and Colossians 3 : 16 : " Speaking to 
yourselves in Psalms, hymns, humnois, and spiritual 
songs." It suits the exclusive theory of our brethren, 
to affirm that these three terms in both passages, " proba- 
bly indicate sacred songs which are substantially the 
same ;" * that is, they all mean the Psalms of David. 
But here the best authorities are against them. Henry 
says: "By Psalms may be meant David's Psalms, or 
such composures as were fitly sung with musical instru- 
ments. By hymns, such others as were confined to mat- 
ter of praise, as those of Zacharias, Simeon," &c. Dod- 
dridge adds : " I see not the authority for supposing all 
these words to refer to David's poetical pieces," &c. f 
Dr. Scott says the words mean, " the Psalms and hymns 
of the sacred Scriptures and such spiritual songs as pious 
men composed on the peculiar subjects of the gospel." 

* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 140. 

•j* See also Macknight on the Epistles. 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR HYMNS. 149 

Again, lie interprets these words to mean, "hymns and 
songs of praise to God, and poems of every kind which 
are suited to prepare them for the worship of heaven : 
and let them use these hymns and songs constantly, not 
on public occasions alone, but in social meetings also/' 
&c. The learned editor of the Comprehensive Commen- 
tary, Dr. Jenks, says: " Psalmoi, not simply David's, 
for then the article would have been used, hoi Fsalmoi. 
The words certainly comprehended other compositions/' 
Dr. Hodge, in his Commentary on Ephesians, takes the 
same large view, and adds as one of the scriptural mean- 
ings of psalmos, Psalm: "Any sacred poem formed on 
the Old Testament Psalms, as in 1 Corinthians 14 : 26, 
where psalmon appears to mean such a song given by in- 
spirationj and not one of the Psalms of David." Such 
is the unanimous testimony of these commentators : they 
are in direct opposition to the view held by these breth- 
ren, viz. that by "Psalms, hymns and songs," Paul 
meant exclusively the book of Psalms. 

But it is replied that the churches of Ephesus and 
Colosse had in their possession the Psalms of David, and 
they had no other — therefore they would most certainly 
understand the apostle as referring to the book of Psalms 
alone. But it seems to be forgotten that those churches 
were recently formed amid a heathen population and in 
heathen cities — books were scarce, and having to be 
copied by the hand on wax, lead, parchment or similar 
materials, were extremely expensive ; and the ability to 
read was by no means general. Besides, when the apos- 
tle rebukes the Corinthians as follows: "Every one of 
you hath a Psalm " — the common interpretation is, that 
these Psalms were the fruits of the gifts of the Holy 
Spirit then bestowed upon the membership of the Corin- 
thian church.* Then why might not the same Divine 
influence have been found at Ephesus and Colosse ? 
And why may not Paul refer to this class of Psalms, as 

• See Prof. Hodge's Commentary on Ephesians ; also various other 
commentators of the best repute. 
13* 



150 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

well as to those of David ? In view of the whole argu 
merit, it appears most evident, as Dr. Hodge remarks, 
"that not only Psalms, but hymns as distinct composi- 
tions, also were employed." As to the Septuagint use 
of the term, when Isaiah would predict the glorious tri- 
umphs of the gospel, he exclaims — " Sing unto the Lord 
a new song (humnon or hymn), and his praise from the 
ends of the earth." Chapter 42 : 10. The Greek is very 
expressive — "Hymn unto the Lord a new hymn." The 
hymn immediately follows, and though not found in "the 
book of Psalms," Isaiah exhorts to sing it, including, of 
course, all similar hymns ; an exhortation or command 
just as binding upon the New Testament church as any 
requirement to "sing Psalms" which is found in the 
book of that name. 

But in ascertaining the correct meaning of these two 
celebrated texts, (Ephesians 5 : 19 ; Colossians 3 : 16,) 
we have decidedly in our favor no less a personage than 
the distinguished patriarch of the Associate or Seceder 
Presbytery of Scotland, Ralph Erskine. This may seem 
strange, but it is not the less true. In the preface to his 
poetical "paraphrase" upon the "Song of Solomon," af- 
ter speaking of the " Song " as full of Christ, he says : 
"I judge that a song upon this subject is not unseasona- 
ble, when the songs of the temple (the church) are like 
to be turned into howlings, &c. How desirable," he adds, 
"that this little book might help her to sing away her sor- 
rows, * * to drive away the night of trouble with, songs 
of praise," &c. "We have a Divine precept," he 
continues, "perhaps too much forgotten and neglected, 
in Ephesians 5 : 18, 19, and Colossians 3 : 16." " Like- 
wise an express Divine appointment in Psalm 46 : 6, 7, 
how we are to sing," &c. "Now this sacred Song of 
Solomon being very mysterious, that you may be the 
more able to sing it over with understanding, I have en- 
deavored to lay open the mysteries," &c. He then states 
that he "had cast his paraphrase in the mould of common 
metre" for the purpose of singing. 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR HYMNS. 151 

Here, then, it will be seen that Ralph Erskine interprets 
Paul's "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs/' as A Di- 
vine precept to sing the "Song of Solomon." And his 
recommendation of the " Song " is not only for private de- 
votion, but as he says, " to help her (the church) to sing 
away her sorrows with these songs of praise." Surely 
Ralph Erskine had not before his eyes the fear of "the 
sin of Nadab and Abihu V The truth is, he had no 
dogma of exclusive Psalmody to warp his judgment, and 
therefore he uttered the sentiments of piety and good 
sense. It is certainly worthy of distinct record, that a 
man "whose name," as Dr. Beveridge affirms, "deserves 
to be held in everlasting remembrance," should have thus 
discovered in these oft disputed texts, " a Divine pre- 
cept" to sing other productions than the one hundred and 
fifty Psalms — and that, too, at the very period when, as he 
says, " the songs of the church (Rouse) were turned into 
bowlings !" 

But perhaps it will be replied, that Erskine refers only 
to an "inspired song," and therefore, he does not approve 
" human composition." But this is a mistake. He calls 
his poetical work, "a paraphrase, or large explicatory 
poem." The first line of the " Song," viz. its naked ti- 
tle, he expands into four stanzas of four lines each, and 
so of the rest. The line, verse 4, " Draw me ; we will 
run after thee " — is paraphrased into twelve lines. Er- 
skine's paraphrase is no more an inspired song than the 
"explanation of the Psalm" by the Associate Reformed 
minister. Yet this distinguished father and founder of 
the Associate or Seceder body, finds "a Divine pre- 
cept" for singing this "human production" in the 
words of Paul, Ephesians 5 : 18, 19, and Colossians 3 : 
16. Thus the evidence is full and clear, that the inter- 
pretation which makes "Psalms, hymns and spiritual 
songs " to refer exclusively to the Psalms of David, is a 
novefry got up to suit a particular purpose. " The wish 
is the father of the thought." 

That the primitive church, i. e., the church in the ages 



152 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

immediately succeeding the apostles, was not restricted tc 
the hook of Psalms as their only Psalmody, is so clearly 
demonstrated by history as to admit of no doubt. Thus 
the celebrated Neander writes as follows : " Singing also 
passed from the Jewish service into that of the Christian 
church. St. Paul exhorts the early Christians to sing 
spiritual songs. What was used for this purpose were 
partly the Psalms of the Old Testament, and partly songs 
composed with this very object : especially songs of praise 
and thanks to God and Christ, and these we know Pliny 
found to be customary among the Christians. In the 
controversies with the Unitarians, about the end of the 
second century, and the beginning of the third, the 
hymns in which, from early times, Christ had been hon- 
ored as God, were appealed to." 
This is clear and decisive : 

1. The praises of the church were offered in part, in 
the language of the Psalms of David. 

2. They were offered also in songs (or hymns) com- 
posed with this very object. 

3. These songs of praise to God and Christ, were af- 
terward quoted, in controversy with Unitarians, The 
Christians of the close of the second and beginning of 
the third centuries, cited them as hymns to Christ as 
God, and as the testimony of " early times to his divin- 
ity." It is true, the learned Spanheim takes a different 
view. He says, in speaking of the fourth century: 
" That besides hymns and songs and private Psalms, of 
which there was a great number in their solemn assem- 
blies, the Psalm booh of David was brought into the west- 
ern church in this age." 

With this testimony agrees that of the learned and 
generally accurate Mosheim. In his account of the wor- 
ship of the fourth century, he says : " The Psalms of 
David were now received among the public hymns that 
were sung as a part of Divine service." For his author- 
ity, Mosheim refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, the apostoli- 
cal constitutions, and Beausobre. 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR HYMNS. 153 

The difference between these profound historians, it 
will be observed, is not as to " other productions " being 
sung — in this they agree. The only point of dispute is, 
whether the Psalms of David were used in public praise 
prior to the fourth century. Neander, and more recent- 
ly Schaff of this country, are of opinion that portions of 
those Psalms were sung in the churches from the begin- 
ning. Spanheim and Mosheim decide, u not until the 
fourth century." For some further references the reader 
may see Letter XIV. 

We do not deem it at all necessary to examine minute- 
ly certain historical citations made by the friends of 
Rouse. Admitting the correctness of the quotations 
from early writers, as they are adduced by our breth- 
ren — what would they prove ? Only this — that por- 
tions of " the book of Psalms " were employed in 
praising God. But no sound Presbyterian regards this 
as a fact of any importance in this discussion. We 
rather rejoice to know that it was so. We practice 
the same thing. It is the custom among our churches to 
sing parts of " the Psalms of David " every Lord's day, 
as we think it highly probable the early Christians did. 
But here is the point to be settled — u Did any one of 
those primitive Christians regard the book of Psalms as 
the only , universal and perpetual Psalmody of the church 
for all ages V Did any one of them ever dream that it 
was a high crime, scarcely less heinous than that of Uzza, 
Nadab, Abihu, &c, to worship God in any other songs 
of praise ? Let them produce a solitary scrap from any 
writer of those early times to prove these points, and 
then we will attend to their demonstrations. Till then, 
we will continue to believe that the primitive church 
found "a Divine precept/' as Ralph Erskine did, (in 
Ephesians 5 : 19 ; Colossians 3 : 26,) for singing human 
paraphrases of the u Song of Solomon/' as well as all 
other suitable portions of the Scriptures. And further, 
that many of those primitive Christians were highly gift- 
ed by the Father of lights, to enable them to compose 



154 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

suitable songs of praise. As a specimen, Basil, of the 
fourth century, cites one that had become very ancient 
even in his day, and which is translated by Dr. Pye 
Smith as follows: " Jesus Christ — joyful Light of the 
Holy ! Glory of the Eternal, heavenly, holy, blessed 
Father ! Having now come to the setting of the sun — 
beholding the evening light, we praise the Father and the 
Son and the Holy Spirit of God. Thou art worthy to be 
praised of sacred voices, at all seasons, Son of God, 
who givest life. Wherefore the universe glorifieth Thee !' 

Another, equally ancient, begins thus : " We praise 
thee — we sing hymns to thee — we bless thee — we glorify 
thee — we worship thee — by thy great High Priest; thou 
who art the true God — who art the One unbegotten," &c. 
In such strains the early Christians conducted the service 
of song. 

It was of such hymns as these Clemens of Alexandria 
(about A. D. 175,) wrote as follows : " Gather together 
thy children to praise the Leader of children, the eter- 
nal Logos, the eternal Light, the Fountain of mercy. 
Filled with the dew of the Spirit, let us sing sincere 
praises, genuine hymns to Christ our king." * 

From the fourth century down to the period of the 
glorious Reformation, no one can question the common 
use of hymns not found among the one hundred and fifty 
Psalms. The martyrs, Huss and Jerome, who were 
burned by the Papists at the Council of Constance, sung 
such hymns, even amid their last sufferings. Of Jerome, 
history says : " As he went to execution he sung the 
Apostles' creed and the hymns of the church with a loud 
voice and a cheerful countenance. He kneeled at the stake 
and prayed. Being then bound he raised his voice and 
sung a paschal hymn, then much in vogue in the church : 

'Hail! happy day, and ever be adored, 
When hell was conquered by great heaven's Lord.' " 

Luther wrote many hymns, among others a small vol- 

* For some further proofs and examples of these primitive hymns, 
see Letter No. XIV. • 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR HYMNS. 155 

time of about forty pieces, for the celebration of the 
Lord's Supper. Nor was there in that noble offshoot of 
the Reformation, the church of Scotland, any great hos- 
tility to hymns. To the copies which we have seen of 
her earliest paraphrase of the Psalms, Sternhold and 
Hopkins, we find prefixed thirteen hymns, including the 
songs of Zacharias and Mary. Twelve similar songs 
stand at the close, including " songs to be sung before 
morning and evening prayer" — " a prayer to be sung 
before the sermon," and " a thanksgiving after receiving 
the Lord's Supper." Here are twenty-five hymns at- 
tached to the Psalms of David, and bound with the Bible ! 
Can any one doubt with what object ? These songs are 
for the most part not even paraphrases of portions of 
Scripture, but " mere human compositions." To what 
extent they were used, we have no means of information. 
Such a prefix or appendix to Rouse, in these modern 
times, would produce some astonishment, if tolerated and 
published by our strict brethren in this country. 

Let us now turn to some of the objections to our views : 

1. " The book of Psalms is an inspired system of 
Psalmody." "It is the workmanship of God; * * it 
is perfect, and as a system needs no addition."* 

But it has been shown in previous Letters, that it was 
not so viewed even by the Jews. Hezekiah, the mourn- 
ers for Josiah, &c, used " other productions." 

Again : We admit that for all the purposes for which 
it was designed , as " the production of Infinite Wisdom," 
as a precious part of "the rule of faith," &c, the book 
of Psalms is "perfect" But David in the 19th Psalm 
says, " The law of the Lord is perfect" What did he 
mean ? Doubtless God's holy Word. And how large a 
part, even of the Old Testament, did the church possess 
at that period ? Certainly, the five books of Moses, and 
perhaps the other historical records of Samuel and the 
Kings, and some of the Psalms. If the law of the Lord 
was perfect then, (to say nothing of the New Testament ; ) 
* Pressly on Psalmody, pp. 142, 189. 



156 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

where was the use of those Psalms which were not com- 
posed at that period, and of the prophets who lived in 
subsequent ages ? We hold the perfection of the Psalms, 
just as we hold the perfection of the "law," viz. a per- 
fection which admits all the clearer Divine revelations 
of subsequent periods — a perfection for the uses for which 
it teas designed by Infinite Wisdom. Let it be proved 
that God designed the book of Psalms as a perfect and 
all-sufficient system of praise for all ages, and the objec- 
tion will then cease to be a mere begging of the question. 
2. Another objection : " In the book of Psalms, not 
an attribute of the Deity, not a icork that he has done, 
but here stands forth in bold relief."* If this were true, 
it would render almost useless all the rest of the inspired 
volume. What more do we want than all the attributes 
of God, and all his icorks of creation, providence and re- 
demption ? But where in the Psalms are we told that 
Christ should appear in this world as a little child, " the 
babe of Bethlehem," not as a full grown and perfect 
man ? Where do they teach that he should be born of 
a virgin — that Mary of Nazareth was to be his mother — 
and that "Jesus of Nazareth" was the long-predicted 
Messiah, to the exclusion of all " false Christs ?" Where 
are we told of that most affecting icork of mercy, the par- 
don of the thief on the cross ? Where, the institution 
of the Lord's Supper, and the change of the Sabbath from 
the seventh to the first day of the week ? " Not a icork 
that he has done /" Was the Reformation under Lu- 
ther " a work of God ?" What Psalm speaks of it ? 
And so we might run on for pages, exposing the folly of 
those who claim for the " book of Psalms" a perfection 
which its glorious Author never designed it should pos- 
sess.^ In their zeal for a denominational dogma, these 

* Preacher, Dec. 29, 185S. 

f " If you want a book which shall adequately set forth the high 
praises of the Lord our God, for all he is and- for all he has done, in 
the vast ranges of creation, providence and redemption, then we need 
no other, and can find no other than this book.*' — United Presbyterian, 
of Cincinnati. 



ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. 157 

brethren seem to forget that " life and immortality are 
brought to light in the gospel." 

3. Third objection. "We have no command to make 
songs of praise, in addition to those composed by David 
and the others in the book of Psalms." Neither is there 
any command to make sermons. We have the precept, 
" Preach the word," which implies that our discourses 
must be composed. So we have a command to sing 
praises, and the inspired hymns and examples of those 
who composed other songs than are found among the 
one hundred and fifty Psalms. Will it be said, that 
God has not given us a " book of sermons," but has 
given us a " book of Psalms ?" This is a mistake. The 
title of " the book of Ecclesiastes," not only in the orig- 
inal Hebrew, but in the Septuagint, Vulgate and English 
versions, is " the Preacher." Here are the dibrai kohe- 
hth, " the words of the Preacher," his public discourses, 
or a collection of inspired sermons. Besides, what forms 
the greater part of the prophets, to say nothing of the 
public addresses of Moses, and Solomon, and Ezra, and 
Nehemiah, and Job ? Are there not in the New Testa- 
ment, also, a large number of the discourses of the Sa- 
viour and his Apostles ? The whole Bible is, in great 
part, a collection of " inspired sermons." Well, then, 
as there is no divine precept to make sermons, why does 
the preacher presume to compose them ? Does he think 
he can make better discourses than inspired men, yea, 
than even the Divine Saviour himself! So it would 
seem ; otherwise he would use those already prepared, 
perfect sermons, " the workmanship of God, productions 
of Infinite Wisdom." What profane men these preach- 
ers must be, thus " impiously to reject" the discourses 
God has composed, and inspired prophets and apostles 
preached, in order to give a preference to their own effu- 
sions !* The same reasoning holds good in regard to the 

* We admit that the apostles composed sermons — but they were in- 
spired men — and it remains to be proved that their example authorizes 
every preacher to prefer " his own effusions." 
11 



158 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

" human composition" of their prayers, in preference to 
the very numerous prayers composed by inspired men. 

4. These brethren object to our theory as involving the 
profane idea that "some parts of the word of God maybe 
laid aside as useless, while other portions may be selected 
and profitably retained."* This has been already answered. 
Do not these objectors, to a much larger extent, lay aside 
many parts of the discourses of the Bible ? Did they 
ever preach one of them in place of one of their own ? 
Thus they " entirely omit many whole sermons, and large 
pieces of many others !" The very thing which they 
charge upon Dr. Watts u as a contempt of the Spirit of . 
Inspiration," they themselves practice in their discourses 
and in their public prayers ! They group together texts 
from all quarters, from Genesis to Revelation, and thus 
patch up their own " human compositions," which they 
exalt above the word of God, viz., by setting aside " in- 
spired sermons" to make room for their own productions. 
Besides, are there no parts of the word of God which 
these brethren " lay aside as useless" for the public read- 
ing of the Scriptures ? Does Dr. P. ever read from the 
pulpit certain passages in the Levitical law ? Does he 
ever quote such texts in the presence of his congregation? 
No, he purposely avoids them. See, then, how he (i lays 
aside some parts of the Holy Scripture as useless" in 
public worship ! Of course, it follows that he must think 
" the word of God given in a very defective form !" Thus 
he decides that certain portions of Divine truth are un- 
suitable for public worship ! How shocking ! 

5. It is objected, that our method of employing the 
book of Psalms in praise, involves as a legitimate result, 
that men may alter and improve the whole Bible, the 
rule of faith, &c. And it gives a license, it is said, to 
every u imitator and hymnographer to attempt to com- 
pose hymns to thrust out the songs of Zion." 

The answer is obvious : We believe " the whole word 
of God is of use to direct us in praise;" and that in the 
* Presslj on Psalmody, p. 112. 



ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. 159 

whole ordering of the matter of versions, &c, it is the 
duty of the church in her highest judicatory, not of 
"every imitator and hymnographer," to take the exclu- 
sive direction. In this as in every other appropriate sphere 
of her duty, the church has the promised presence and 
blessing of her Divine Master, "Lo I am with you always, 
even to the end of the world ; and where two or three 
are gathered in my name, there am I" &c. ; and has a 
most clear and express title to expect the aids of the 
Holy Spirit, certainly to say the least, with no less confi- 
dence than any individual minister is entitled to expect 
the aids of the Spirit in u the human composition" of his 
prayers ! If it be said that this is a very large and dan- 
gerous power to intrust in the hands of the church • we 
reply, not a whit larger or more dangerous than the pre- 
par at ion of her Creed and Catechisms I Not a whit 
larger or more dangerous than to intrust to the pastors 
of the church the ichole exposition of the word of God, 
and especially the whole explaining of the Psalms before 
they are sung, thus "giving the gospel sense" to all that 
is typical, clearing up what is obscure, and instructing 
the people in the doctrines implied or expressed ! Cer- 
tainly the collective wisdom of the church may be as 
safely trusted, as these individual pastors. 

"We maintain that as the "rule of faith," the Bible 
cannot be altered for the better, either in whole or in 
part. But every preacher alters the order and connection 
of the Scriptures, both in his sermons and prayers. 
"Why ? To make them more plain and instructive to the 
people, and render the worship more impressive and 
useful. 

Just so is it with the church in the proper use of the 
Psalms and other parts of Scripture for purposes of 
praise. There is no more attempt to be " wiser than 
God" in the latter case than in the former. Even Prof. 
Patterson decides that " the Psalms need exposition to 
open these sacred fountains, which otherwise remain 
sealed," &c. It must be done either in prose or verse — 



160 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

either by the individual preacher in the pulpit, or under 
the supervision of the whole church in her highest court. 
Which is likely to be the safer guide, let common sense 
decide. 

For such ends as these, it is obvious that in order to 
worship with " the spirit and the understanding also," 
adaptation is needful, yea indispensable; selection is law- 
ful, explanation is absolutely necessary, transposition and 
grouping of parts may be highly expedient and proper, 
expounding typical matters, &c, may be highly com- 
mendable, condensation (as in creeds and catechisms) is 
the proper work of the church, &c. But surely it does 
not follow, because we advocate such liberties as these, 
that we must therefore to be consistent, attempt to amend 
" the rule of faith," " raise a hue and cry against the 
old Bible," &c. By no means. " The old Bible" is 
just what it ought to be, " the perfect Law of God." 
All that we teach is, that in the three great elements of 
public worship, preaching, prayer and praise, the church 
is entitled, yea, is bound in fidelity to her Divine Master, 
to use all the means and advantages which God has given 
her, to open and expound his Divine word, to employ its 
precious truths in the most suitable and edifying mode, 
and to draw from its inexhaustible stores, whether in 
the New Testament or the Old, the sacred and soul stir- 
ring themes, the blessed and delightful meditations, the 
glorious truths and bright manifestations of God in the 
flesh j the devout aspirations, &c, which have thrilled the 
hearts of God's children, both under the new and old 
dispensation, and formed the songs of angels and spirits 
of the just in heaven. 

The sum of the argument is therefore briefly this: 
The " principles" on w r hich the Presbyterian system of 
Psalmody is formed, are substantially the same as those 
on which all exposition, especially all lecturing upon se- 
lect passages of Scripture, is conducted — the "princi- 
ples" on which ministers compose their prayers and " ex- 
plain the Psalms" — the " principles" on which the 



AXSWE11S TO OBJECTIONS. 161 

church assumes the immense responsibility of construct- 
ing her Creed and Catechisms ; in a word, the same 
" principles" by which the church, as all admit, assumes 
the control and direction, under responsibility to her 
God, of every other part of Divine worship. 

6. But it is alleged " that the tendencies of our hymns 
are strongly toward error and heresy — while the Psalms, 
wherever exclusively used, have proved highly conserva- 
tive in keeping the church right." 

But here the facts are generally the other way. Take 
the example of the Jews. They sung, they still sing, 
David's Psalms alone and in the original Hebrew. Have 
they always been remarkably free from idolatry, heresy 
and apostasy ? 

The blessed Saviour, too, a Divine Pastor, had a small 
congregation, which these brethren say praised God only 
in David. Were they, including the traitor Judas, all 
remarkable for stability in maintaining the truth ? On 
a certain occasion " they all forsook him and fled V* 

The apostolic church, too, these brethren affirm, used 
only David. But how early did "the mystery of iniquity 
begin to work ? " How soon were even apostles sum- 
moned to contend with deadly heresies and apostasies in 
the bosom of the churches they had planted 1 Singing 
the Psalms of David, even in their purest and most un- 
adulterated form, was not a preventive of error among 
them, as their experience sadly testified. The Jews of 
the present day sing the Psalms of David in a much 
purer state than the friends of Bouse. The Arians of 
Ulster use the veritable " Old Bouse." They used it at 
the very time when their apostasy occurred. Perhaps, 
they also sung other productions ; but in this they did 
nothing wcrse than the Free church of Scotland ; nor is 
there the smallest evidence that to this source must be 
traced the apostasy of Ulster, any more than their vol- 
ume of hymns by Watts and others, is likely to corrupt 
the Free church. 

Again, all Protestant churches use the same Bible. 



162 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

Then how absurd for any one to ascribe to any English 
versification, say the patchwork verse of Rouse, a higher 
usefulness and efficiency in any particular, than he 
ascribes to the pure word of God, including the Psalms 
in prose, and the New Testament. 

7. The use of hymns, it is further objected, " promotes 
disunion and schism, while the tendencies of David ex- 
clusively are manifest toward union and harmony." 

This is, perhaps, the most extraordinary of all objec- 
tions. There are not less than five or six denominations 
which sing " Rouse's paraphrase ?" They are quite small 
in numbers, and their differences are admitted to be of 
no very great magnitude. For many years two of the 
more harmonious among them have been holding conven- 
tions, composing platforms, issuing " Testimonies " and 
other bonds of union ; writing, speaking, praying, preach- 
ing, yea, even singing Rouse, in order to promote their 
union. What has been the result? Why, instead of 
two sects, as formerly, there are now three composed of 
the same materials ? Yet their leading authors bitterly 
reproach our hymns as sources of division, "sectarian- 
ism," &c. 

Were all these smaller sects put together, they would 
not compose a body at all unwieldly for its magnitude — 
probably not over seven hundred or eight hundred minis- 
ters and perhaps seventy-five thousand communicants. 
Does this look like union and harmony ? The " secta- 
rian hymns" are not responsible for these divisions. 
They have all enjoyed an "inspired Psalmody" — but 
strange to say, it has neither prevented nor healed their 
fragmentary divisions and subdivisions, but a new one 
has just been added to the number. 

Admitting that each denomination naturally wishes to 
have its Psalmody in concord with its doctrinal and practi- 
cal views — and this is a result of common sense — what 
follows ? Is it any better among those churches which 
ging Rouse ? The plain truth is, that by " explaining 
the Psalm," these brethren make Rouse teach whatever 



ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. 163 

opinions or "sectarian views" they may individually 
have adopted, just as the Arians of Ulster do — and what 
more can be said of the authorized Psalmody of all other 
denominations ? Of course each sect will reflect its own 
views of Scripture in its preaching, its prayers, and its 
public praise, and there seems to be no cure for the evils 
of one, more than the evils of the others. Indeed, 
preaching error is a far more " powerful and certain 
agency for the increase and perpetuity of sectarianism/' 
than praise. 

Nor is the influence of Rouse in the Presbyterian 
churches of Scotland much better. The four principal 
denominations embrace a little over two thousand eight 
hundred congregations — being five hundred congregations 
less than belong to the Old School Presbyterians of this 
country. Has the Psalmody of Rouse always secured 
purity and concord there ? Read Hetherington's history 
of u Moderatisni," Burgher and Anti-Burgher strifes, 
&c. Read Dr. Beveridge's account * of the fearful con- 
flicts in the days of the Erskines, when as Ralph says, 
" the songs of the temple were like to be turned into 
holdings!" Yes, even the " songs " of the anti-sectarian 
Rouse swept away by the flood of cold hearted " Moder- 
atism/' or turned into " howlings I" And as a remedy 
for these evils, Ralph Erskine recommends the singing of 
" Solomon's Song/' &c. 

But perhaps some one will now inquire — "Did ever any 
person of intelligence really make such an objection to 
the Presbyterian Psalmody Y\ We reply in two or three 
extracts from leading periodicals of our brethren : " These 
man-made books," they say, " are all and always secta- 
rian, and their tendency is to perpetuate errors and divi- 
sions forever." " We have a Methodist hymn book, a 
Baptist hymn book, a Mormon hymn book, a Unitarian 
hymn book," &e. f Well, there would be some force in 
this, if the objector could persuade these several sorts of 

• Church Memorial, pp. 18-25. 

f United Presbyterian, of Cincinnati. 



164 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

errorists to do all their preaching and praying according 
to Rouse, as well as their singing. And especially if be 
could persuade them to lay aside the time-honored cus- 
tom of "explaining the Psalm V But until this is done, 
we greatly fear the Mormons, not unlike the Jews, might 
sing even Rouse and be no nearer the true religion ; and 
the Unitarian preacher, like the Arian of Ulster, might also 
sing Rouse; but by u explaining the Psalms" he would 
" wrest them, as he does the other Scriptures, to his own 
and his hearers destruction !" But of one thing we are 
perfectly sure — that by the singing of the ivords of Rouse 
with a Mormon or Socinian " explanation/' no great ad- 
vance would be made toward union and harmony among 
Christian churches ! 

But hear another defender of this sort of faith. In 
speaking of those who, as he alleges, " set aside the Di- 
vine system of praise/' he says : "What is the spectacle 
which they present ? The Calvinist praising the perfec- 
tions and works of God as they appear in his system of 
theology; the Arminian as they appear in his ; the Uni- 
versalist as they appear in his ; and so, down through 
every grade of error, from that which is nearest the truth 
to that which is most remote — making the worship of 
God as the confusion of Babel V 9 * 

We greatly marvel that these brethren have entirely 
overlooked the Jews, and " the Arians of Ulster/' espe- 
cially the latter, in their anti-sectarian labors. Those 
respectable bodies certainly call for their sympathy as 
loudly, to say the very least, as the Mormons and Uni- 
versalists. Particularly since they are so very anxious 
to effect a reform in whit Dr. K. calls " the worship 
of God I" 

But seriously — can any well informed person imagine 
that the Jew is less of a Jew, " the Arian of Ulster" 
less of an Arian — or either Arian or Jew less of a sec- 
tary, because they both sing " the Psalms/' either in 
Rouse or in Hebrew ? Or that any other sect, Mormon, 
* Her. Dr. Kerr, in Preacher, Jun6 9, 1847. 



ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. 165 

Universalist, &c, would be at all nearer the Scriptural one- 
ness of which Christ speaks, by singing House as explained 
by their sectarian teachers ! All Christian churches are 
instructed by their faithful pastors, to read and study 
diligently both the Testaments, including the book of 
Psalms. Still these studies do not lead them to the same 
precise conclusions in all minute matters of faith and 
practice. Nor can we reasonably expect any different re- 
sult from their singing these Scriptures, or any part of 
them. Yet charity bids us entertain the belief that the 
leading denominations are one in " holding the Head." 
But what sort of Christian union would that be, even 
supposing all the sects to sing Rouse, if they still con- 
tinued to teach and defend as earnestly as ever their sev- 
eral peculiarities ? We have a precious example of this 
sort of oneness in the half dozen or more small bodies 
which agree in singing Rouse. * 

We maintain that there is quite as much true Chris- 
tian union in the vast majority of the evangelical world 
who reject Rouse, as among the small minority who use 
that Psalmody. The former can at least unite in the 
sweet anthem commencing ; 

All hail, the power of Jesus' name ! 
Let saints before him fall ; 
Bring forth the royal diadem, 
And crown Him Lord of all, 

And the same sweet harmony pervades the entire volume 
of their sacred songs, with comparatively few exceptions — 
so few as by no means to render their public praise "the 
Babel of confusion." Certainly not as much so as their 
public prayer and preaching. Does Dr. K. hold that the 
whole devotional services of the sanctuary as maintained 
by all Christian denominations, except the few advocates 

* If reading in Divine worship the same prose version of the Bible, 
including the Psalms and the New Testament, does not produce har- 
mony, how ridiculous to expect suoh a result from the addition of a 
tune to a part of the same inspired record ; and much more to expect 
such a result from " old Rouse," with his four hundred or five hundred 
u human inventions." 



166 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

of Rouse, are " the confusion of Babel?" So it would 
seem. Such are his "brotherly kindness and charity." 
We are suspicious of a zeal for union which brings forth 
such fruits. But enough of such remedies for sectarism. 
The men who can have faith in them, need not find it 
hard to believe that baptism is regeneration, or that 
prayer and praise are appreciated in heaven by the char- 
acter of the sound rather than by the sense, by the words 
uttered with the lips, rather than by the spiritual emo- 
tions of the heart. 

But why should the various Christian denominations 
differ on this subject — why not all agree to adopt " the 
Psalms " as their system of praise, and in " a literal and 
correct version ?" This inquiry has been variously an- 
swered in our previous pages — but some further remarks 
will be given in our next Letter. 



LETTER XIII. 

BOOK OF PSALMS NOT DESIGNED TO BE THE ONLY AND PERPETUAL 

PSALMODY OF THE CHURCH FIVE FURTHER ARGUMENTS TO PROVE 

IT FRUITS OF THE EXCLUSIVE SYSTEM SUSPENSION OF MINIS- 
TERS, ELDERS AND CHURCH MEMBERS ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY 

PRAYER AND PRAISE BOTH HUMAN COMPOSITION — SO MINGLED IN 

THE PSALMS AS TO BE INSEPARABLE, HENCE INCONSISTENCIES 

STRANGE JARRING OF OPINIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF " INSPIRED 
PSALMODY" — GROSS ERRORS OF ROUSE. 

My Dear Sir : — In pressing their demand that nine 
tenths of the churches in this country should abandon 
their cherished usages, and go over to the other tenth, 
viz. the friends of Bouse, one of the most popular argu- 
ments takes this form : " You have no conscientious scru- 
ples in regard to the one hundred and fifty Psalms of the 
Bible. In perfect consistency with your position you 
can admit our practice to be in itself right — but in con- 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 167 

sistency with our views, we advocates of Rouse cannot 
so regard your practice. You can sing the Psalms of 
David, but we cannot use jour Psalmody." And the 
inference seems to be, that for the sake of union, the 
great body of the evangelical church should conform to 
the small fragment of the defenders of Rouse, by adopt- 
ing their exclusive theory. 

Now without pausing to remark upon the modesty of 
all this, but putting the case in its strongest shape, sup- 
pose that these brethren really sing " the inspired 
Psalms," not an explanatory paraphrase \ concede for a 
moment that the real question is not (what we have shown 
it to be,) between " the paraphrase of Rouse" and the 
paraphrase of Dr. Watts, amended by our Assembly. 
Admitting all this for argument, this popular plea pro- 
ceeds upon several obvious mistakes : 

1. We do not admit either their principle or their prac- 
tice " to be in itself right." The principle which assumes 
a Divine warrant for singing " a literal version of the 
Whole book of Psalms/' we regard as both false and in- 
jurious to the best interests of the church under her pres- 
ent dispensation. That there is no such " Divine appoint- 
ment" either in the precepts or the practice of our Lord 
and his apostles, has been proved, we trust, in former 
Letters. And this result is strongly sustained by the 
reasonableness of the thing itself. Take for example, 
the first, though not the most striking illustration that 
presents itself: "Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would 
I give it — thou delightest not in burnt offering. The 
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit," &c* Rouse gives 
the sentiment quite literally, and as far as it goes, nothing 
could be more appropriate. But is nothing more required 
of a Christian of these times ? Here is the version sung 
by the Scottish Wishart the evening before his mart'yr- 

* A parallel text is Psalm 66 : 15. " I will offer unto thee burnt 
sacrifices of failings, with the incense of rams; I will offer bullocks 
with goats." And so with very many others. 



168 LETTERS OX PSALMODY. 

dom, and in the reformation times of John Knox, in 
parallel with our paraphrase : 

wishart's hymn. dr. watts. 

Gif thou had pleased sacrifice A broken heart, my God, iny king, 
I should them offered thee; Is all the sacrifice I bring — 

But thon wilt not sic sacrifice, The God of grace will ne'er despise 
For thou art wonder free : A broken heart for sacrifice. 

And givest us thy benefites * * * * 

Through Christ's blude freely. Thy blood can make me white as 
To thy mercie will I go. snow, 

No Jewish types could cleanse m6 
so. 

Indeed these brethren virtually admit this to be u the 
right practice/' for in " explaining the Psalm/' they 
teach the people to sing the words of Rouse with the very 
meaning adopted by Wishart and Watts ! The impiety 
of attempting to improve the inspired song, is just as 
great in the one form as in the other — the difference be- 
ing between improvement in prose and improvement in 
verse. And the distinct recognition of the only true sac- 
rifice, "the Lamb of God/' in this and other songs, we 
believe to be a duty — an essential method of " confessing 
Him before men." So the prophet Zechariah — " They 
shall look on me whom they have pierced, and mourn. " 

2. We have much stronger objections to the exclusive 
feature of our brethren's "practice." While in them- 
selves considered, there is no part of any of the one hun- 
dred and fifty Psalms which is absolutely unfit to be 
sung — there are unquestionably portions of many of 
those Psalms which are less suitable for New Testament 
worship than many other parts of the inspired Scriptures. 
And we have no hesitation in saying that it is wrong, ut- 
terly wrong to suffer such portions of the Psalms to ex* 
elude other more suitable and equally Divine ascriptions 
of praise from the private and public devotions of God's 
people. Take for instance those beautiful songs in the 
"Revelation." There can be scarce a doubt that the 
hymn, chapter 5 : 9-13, was intended to exhibit the na- 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 169 

ture and characteristics of the New Testament Psalmo- 
dy. Dr. Scott says — " Though heaven is the scene of 
these visions j yet they had continual reference to the tem- 
ple and its worship ; and the state of the church on earth 
is particularly adverted to." And what do they sing 
"in heaven?" Dr. Scott answers — "They all joined in 
a song of praise, which was not only most excellent, but 
it was also NEW, in respect of the occasion and composi- 
tion : for the Old Testament church celebrated the praises 
of Jehovah, * * and anticipated the coming of the ex- 
pected Messiah ; but the New Testament church adored 
Christ as actually come, as having finished his work on 
earth * * * and entered into his glory." And so of 
other songs in that book. Yet these very songs of ador- 
ing wonder and love — " Worthy is the Lamb that was 
slain," &c; these magnificent anthems sung with blessed 
voices and sinless hearts " in heaven," are pronounced 
" serious corruptions," if sung by the church on earth ! 
We cannot but regard the principle which leads to such 
results as wrong, and highly offensive to " Him who sit- 
teth on the throne, and to the Lamb." Yet the princi- 
ple of these brethren, while it repudiates such songs as 
those mentioned, regards as highly acceptable such stan- 
zas as the following : 

Let covetous extortioners 
Catch all he hath away : 
Of all for which he labored hath, 
Let strangers make a prey. 

Let there be none to pity him, 
Let there be none at all 
That on his children fatherless 
Will let his mercy fall. 

Let God his father's wickedness 
Still to remembrance call ; 
And never let his mother's sin 
Be blotted out at all. 

As cursing he like clothes put on, 
Into his bowels so 
Like water, and into his bones 
Like oil, down let it go. 
15 



170 LETTERS OJS T PSALMODY. 

The New Testament interprets these passages as refer- 
ring to the traitor Judas — and of course they belong to 
"the legal or prophetic language". of a previous econo- 
my, as Dr. Watts correctly explains them. But why 
should such stanzas be esteemed of "Divine appoint- 
ment " and most acceptable praise, while the song of sub- 
lime triumph which John heard sung " in heaven " 
(Rev. 19 : 1-7,) over " the judgments " which " aveng- 
ed the blood of God's servants " upon " the great whore" 
of the apostasy, would be a vile " corruption ?" — a Alle- 
luia, salvation and glory and honor and power unto the 
Lord our God." "And again they said, Alleluia. 
Praise our God, all ye his servants." " And I heard 
as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voico 
of many waters and of great thunderings, saying, Alle- 
luia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." " In these 
praises," says Dr. Scott, " the emblematical representa- 
tives of the church and her ministers most cordially 
united." Yes, they could unite "in heaven" — but 
these brethren cannot unite with the church on earth in 
such a song ! " They are compelled to be silent," they 
tell us, " lest they should offer strange fire !" 

3. That the "book of Psalms" was not designed by 
its Divine Author as the Psalmody of the church exclu- 
sively and for all coming time, appears most evident from 
a comparison of its contents with the substance, style 
and tenor of the New Testament, especially the Epistles. 
The new dispensation requires additional forms of wor- 
ship, preaching, prayer and praise. 

Probably no one will question that the writings of 
Paul and the other apostles form a perfect standard by 
which to construct our prayers and our sermons. How 
constantly and steadily is the attention fixed upon the 
cross ! How does the glowing mind of the writer, espe- 
cially of Paul, delight to place the crown upon the head 
of his Saviour ? How does he love to dwell upon that 
dear name " which is above every name" — " that at the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 171 

confess/' &c. Thus, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
the titles Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, 
Lord, Head, Master, Beloved, occur sixty-three times in 
one hundred and fifty-five verses; and in Philippians, 
forty-three times in one hundred and four verses. And 
ascriptions of praise, more or less direct, are offered to 
the adorable Redeemer, in not less than twenty instances 
in Ephesians — Philippians we have not examined. But 
the peculiar name Jesus, communicated to his mother 
by special revelation from God, is not found in the 
Psalms, and the term " anointed" Heb. Messiah, is not 
used to designate Christ more than six or seven times — 
though the volume contains between three thousand and 
four thousand verses — about fifteen times the number in 
the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Philippians. 

The same train of remark applies to the third Person 
of the adorable Trinity. The three or four thousand 
verses of the Psalms mention the Holy Spirit not more 
than five or six times; but in the Ephesians alone, we 
find his name in connection with his Divine operations, 
eleven times. The New Testament economy is emphati- 
cally "the dispensation of the Spirit;" and therefore we 
may expect to discover much more full and precious de- 
monstrations of his person, character, offices, attributes, 
and works ; and this is especially true of his regenerating 
and sanctifying influences upon the hearts of men. 

This contrast might be extended through all the great 
distinguishing doctrines and ordinances so clearly reveal- 
ed in the new dispensation — all that is meant when it 
is said, "the law was given by Moses, but grace and 
truth came by Jesus Christ" — and " life and immortality 
are brought to light by the gospel." All devoted, able 
" ministers of the New Testament" feel alike on this 
topic; all recognize the teaching of Christ and his apos- 
tles as their chief pattern both in prayer and preaching, 
and even in " explaining the Psalms." Why should it 
be otherwise in praise ? In these aspects we cannof but 
regard the practice of these brethren as very far from 



172 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

being right ; and for such reasons as these, we cannot 
adopt their exclusive system of Psalmody, and especially 
not in a literal form. We feel conscientiously bound, in 
our measure to copy the inspired Paul, who often turns 
abruptly aside in the midst of his most logical trains of 
reasoning, to offer praise to his exalted Redeemer. For 
example, Rom. 9:5, " Of whom Christ came, who is 
over all, God blessed for ever. Arnen." 

4. We reach the same general result, when we exam- 
ine many of the prayers embodied in "the Psalms. " It 
has been shown, in our previous Letters, that no Divine 
command has indicated that book as the only system of 
song under the present dispensation. In regard to the 
very numerous prayers found in it, there is therefore no 
more reason why we should sing literally every expres- 
sion of the Psalmist, than that we should use literally 
the other numerous prayers of the Bible, as of Solomon, 
Hezekiah, Jonah, Daniel, &c. Suppose a minister were 
to repeat literally, word for word, in the supplications of 
the pulpit, the prayer of Jonah, u Out of the belly of 
hell cried I." " I went down to the bottom of the moun- 
tains ; the weeds were wrapped about my head." u Thou 
hadst cast me into the deep in the midst of the seas/' 
&c. Such passages as these no doubt might be spiritual- 
ized (as Dr. Watts has done of parts of the Psalms) and 
used with a true " gospel sense," but we suppose no min- 
ister ever used this language in his prayers. And so 
of other prayers recorded in the Bible. They were com- 
posed for special occasions, and are universally regarded 
as unsuitable, and as never designed in their literal form 
for gospel worship. 

A similar example presents itself, one of many, in the 
59th Psalm. David speaks of his enemies thus ; 

At evening let thou them return, 
Making great noise and sound, 
Like to a dog, and often walk 
About the city round. 

Now whatever may have been the particular allusions 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 173 

of the Psalmist, every one feels that the use of this lit- 
eral prayer in the pulpit would be, to say the least, alto- 
gether inexpedient. With this judgment probably even 
the sticklers for the old version would coincide. Why 
then do they sing it, since the only difference is that in 
the latter case they pray with a tune I And so with 
scores of similar passages, which all will acknowledge to 
be highly unsuitable for public formal prayer, but which 
nevertheless they think highly appropriate for public 
prayer with a tune! 

The great obscurity of many parts of the Psalms has 
led at least one writer to take the position " that it is not 
necessary to understand what we sing (or pray) in that 
book." * But if so, why not express the Hebrew in En- 
glish letters and words, and sing them? By this method 
we would be sure of using " an inspired Psalmody." j* 

5. The great fundamental doctrine that Jesus of 
Nazareth was the true, the long promised Mes- 
siah, though nowhere taught in the Psalms, is often most 
emphatically inculcated in the New Testament. For as- 
suming this character, he was bitterly persecuted by the 
Jews. " These things/' says John, " are written that 
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ." " There- 
fore," adds Peter, " let all the house of Israel know as- 
suredly, that God hath made that same Jesus * * both 
Lord and Christ." And the confession of this great truth 
is exhibited by " the beloved disciple " as a test of true 
piety. " Many deceivers are entered into the world, who 
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." 
" Hereby know ye the spirit of God — every spirit that 
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. 
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is 
come in the flesh, is not of God" These are very strong 
declarations. And whatever else they teach, they at least 

* Rev. Mr. Gordon. 

f Thomas Aquinas held that it was not necessary for first orders, 
that a priest should understand the meaning of the Latin Mass Book; 
it was enough if he knew the words, and could pronounce them. Even 
the Council of Trent held the same. 

15* 



174 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

condemn any exclusive system of praise which is defective 
in such essentials as these. We are far from insinuating 
that these brethren deny this fundamental of all reli- 
gion — but so far as regards their forms of praise, they 
could not observe a more profound silence if no such doc- 
trine were true. Even the malignant Jew finds no fault 
with their confession in this particular, but unites with 
them cordially ! Can this be a full and scriptural com- 
pliance with the positive precept from heaven, viz. "that 
all men should honor the Son even as they honor the 
Fattier?" 

If it were necessary to multiply these objections, we 
might advert to the fruits of the system, of which ex- 
clusive Psalmody forms a prominent feature. We had the 
painful privilege, at the meeting of the Associate Synod 
in May, 1853, of being present at the trial of a com- 
plaint from the decision of a Presbytery, sent up by a 
minister of the gospel. The high crimes for which he 
had been arraigned, were these: 1. "Going to hear a 
minister of the Old School Presbyterians preach." 2. 
u Inviting to his pulpit an Associate Reformed clergy- 
man !" For these offenses, the Presbytery was directed 
by the Synod to proceed to trial! What was the final 
result, we never took the trouble to ascertain. 

Many of our readers are familiar with the action of 
the Synod of the Associate Reformed body, which con- 
firmed the suspension of one of their elders for uniting 
in singing, at family worship, two verses of the 92d 
Psalm in our system, thus : 

Sweet is the work, my God, my king, 

To praise thy name, give thanks and sing, &e. 

In his " Plea for Peace," Dr. M'Claren has shown that 
our version of this 92d Psalm is as good as Rouse's, 
though not perhaps quite so close. This case occurred 
in this vicinity. Yet at the very same meeting of Synod, 
several of the speakers declared that it was common, in 
both the Associate and Associate Reformed Synods, to 
receive members to communion, " who did not hold the 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 175 

doctrines of election and predestination." These facts 
demonstrate clearly which class of offenses belong "to 
the mint, cummin and anise/' and which to " the 
weightier matters of the law." 

A similar example was reported in " The Banner and 
Advocate," * by the person interested. He had been a 
Presbyterian ; but having removed to Tipton county, In- 
diana, found it most convenient to unite with the Asso- 
ciate Reformed. Soon a particular friend in the Pres- 
byterian ministry came along and preached in the neigh- 
borhood several times ; also at the house of this gentleman. 
The Associate Reformed session got wind of it. He was 
accused of being too sociable with Presbyterians, hearing 
them preach, and uniting with them in singing. " This, 
they said, was a bad example that I was setting before 
the congregation, and as I was one of their leading mem- 
bers, others would be noticing these things ; and that I 
would have to make some acknowledgments before I 
could have any church privilege. Not seeing that I had 
sinned against the All-wise Ruler of the universe, I was 
unwilling to confess that I had sinned against men : and 
the session accordingly proceeded to discipline." One 
good result speedily followed — a new Presbyterian church 
was in a short time erected, dedicated and occupied by a 
promising congregation. 

The explanation of such extreme measures as these is 
not difficult, on the principle stated by the late Dr. Clay- 
baugh, of Oxford. In speaking of the state of denomi- 
national feeling existing in the Associate Reformed 
Synod of New York, he said : "It is believed that there 
is a growing conviction that, in order to maintain the life 
and energy of the body, and prevent its being swallowed 
up by the larger denominations, on the principle that in 
the moral as well as the material world the attraction of 
larger bodies is stronger than that of lesser bodies, the 

* For January 22, 1859. 



176 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

distinctive principles and rules of the body should be 
firmly maintained." * 

Whether the maintaining of u distinctive rules " after 
the manner above indicated, will be promotive of the 
great interests of truth, charity, and salvation, is a very 
serious question. Ought not these brethren to fear lest 
religion herself should prove to be the sufferer from the 
scorn of a profane and wicked world ? 

There are venerable and excellent men in most denom- 
inations, whose very prejudices we instinctively regard 
with respect. From such a brother f proceeds the fol- 
lowing : " Our views and usages lean to virtue's side — 
they originate in our fear of exalting the human above 
the Divine, Our error, if error it be, cannot be a dan- 
gerous one. It cannot arise from any disposition to 
slight the word of God." We regret to be obliged to 
take quite a different view of this subject. So long as 
Dr. WD. sings u Rouse's paraphrase," interlarded, and 
if his views be correct, corrupted by hundreds of patches 
of " human composition," it is vain to talk about " the 
fear of exalting the human above the Divine." But 
waiving this — our esteemed brother rejects, "lays aside as 
useless," very many Psalms and hymns of the Bible, 
which even he will acknowledge to be inspired and Di- 
vine. For example, listen to Ralph Erskine, a chief cap- 
tain of the Seceder host. He is speaking of the beautiful 
evangelical songs of Isaiah : "Of all the prophets (not 
excepting David,) none spoke so clearly of Christ. The 
whole of his prophecy * * * abounds with more 
poetical passages, sacred odes and evangelical songs, than 
all the other prophets besides (including David.) * * 
Those Divine hymns * * have in them as lofty and 
sublime strokes of poetry as are to be met with" Now in 
these and scores of similar songs of praise in other parts 
of the Scriptures, there is nothing human for Dr. M'D. 

* Preacher, July 12, 1854. 

f Br. M'Dill, of Sparta. Illinois. 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 177 

to be afraid of. Erskine says he was not afraid of " turn- 
ing these songs into metre as the Psalms of David are, 
and for the same public use" — because "it was so order- 
ed by Act of the General Assembly of the church of 
Scotland in one of her most noted periods of her re- 
formation ;"* " and also by the Associate Synod, in 
1747. " In all this extensive department of inspired 
songs Dr. M'D's. fears of " exalting the human above 
the Divine " are utterly futile. Let him follow the safe 
leading of that venerable Seceder champion, and cast his 
fears to the winds. Or better still, let him be directed 
by the Act of the General Assembly of the church of 
Scotland, passed August 28, 1617, " that noted period of 
her reformation ." 

But there is another very dark side of this subject, where 
we fear virtue never leans. We have neither time nor 
space to speak at large of the lamentable, desolating evil3 
which result so widely and injuriously, especially in the 
West, from " divisions about Psalmody." How often is 
a community split into fragments on this very rock of 
stumbling ! Two or more poor shriveled churches, look- 
ing like Pharaoh's lean kine, drag out a miserable exist- 
ence, the one denouncing the other as guilty of " idola- 
try," " offering strange fire before the Lord," " commit- 
ting the sin of Nadab and Abihu," " laying the 
stepping stone for infidelity," " exposing themselves 
to the seven last plagues," "incurring the curse 
pronounced upon such as add to or take away from God's 
revealed word," &c. Thus they creep on from year to 
year, the one attempting to devour the other, neither 
able to sustain a pastor, or even to have preaching more 
than a half or quarter of the time. And what is the 
real source of the division? Why just this: Some 
preacher has taught the one party it is a great sin to use 
anything in Divine worship but the " book of Psalms." 
Of course, these people must " lean to virtue's side ! " 
They must take good heed not "to exalt the human 
* Ermine's Works, vol. 10, p. 425. 



178 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

above the Divine/' &c. Thus these two poor little 
churches wrap themselves up in their exclusiveness, the 
gospel is not preached, heresy spreads all around them, 
and souls perish by scores ; whereas, if they were united, 
they could well support an efficient ministry, and become 
"a city set on a hill," a source and centre of Divine 
light and influence upon the whole neighborhood. 

Is the foregoing picture too sombre in its coloring ? 
"We fear that in numerous instances it is not near so 
gloomy as the/ original. We believe these Psalmody di- 
visions to be needless and sinful ; and we as firmly hold 
that the exclusive system from which they spring is im- 
practicable in theory, false in fact, and steadily tending 
to spread ruin among the souls of men. 

Before closing this Letter, we wish to remark upon 
two or three topics, which have hitherto been deferred. 
Frequent allusion has been made to the scriptural doc- 
trine of public and social prayer, especially as strictly of 
" human composition." Both prayer and praise agree in 
being a direct address to God, and the one is as near and 
solemn an approach to infinite purity as the other. Nor is 
there any greater jpresu mp Hon against the right, in itself 
considered, to compose our own praises, enlightened and 
assisted by the word and the Spirit of God (who is pro- 
mised to " dwell with the church to the end of the world,") 
than to compose our own prayers. Suppose now a min- 
ister should make the following announcement to the 
people of his congregation — " Brethren, you may com- 
pose a prayer of any suitable length, the object of which 
shall be, in whole or in part, c in your prayers to praise 
God/ You may select the materials in whole or in part 
from the New Testament ; you may clothe it either in 
whole or in part in your own language ; you may take 
it either in whole or in part from the book of Psalms or 
from other suitable parts of the Scriptures ; and if you 
offer it in faith, or i in the name of Christ/ you may 
assuredly expect the Divine blessing, and the acceptance 
of your offering. But, brethren, beware lest you be 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 179 

tempted to utter that same prayer with a tune ; for if you 
dare to do so, you will commit a sin like unto the sin of 
' Nadab and Abihu' — you will i offer strange fire' and 
call down a curse upon your heads ! You may i speak 
to God/ and 'in your prayers praise him' with such a 
1 human composition/ but if you dare to sing it, i woe 
be unto you ! ' " 

But it is said to be " most daring presumption and te- 
merity" for any man to undertake to furnish "matter to 
'praise the Great God in all that is imposing in his wor- 
ship and service." * Yet we have precisely the same 
sources of " suitable matter," viz. the word, Spirit, pro- 
vidence and works of God, for praise as for prayer. And 
with the presence and aid of the Holy Spirit promised to 
the church, she has just as valid and perfect a right to 
compose a hymn, or approve it, when composed, and 
sing it, as to compose a prayer and speak it ! She has 
all the advantages in the one case that she has in the 
other.f 

Let us now compare the proprieties of praise with 
those which are acknowledged in the reading and preach- 
ing of the word. " In these latter exercises," says 
Matthew Henry, " God speaks to us — but in prayer (and 
praise) we speak to God." From these definitions we 
perceive why certain sentiments and passages of the 
Scriptures may be highly proper and suitable when God 
addresses us, or when we read or hear the Scriptures; 
and yet be much less suitable as the matter of our ad- 
dresses to God, when we engage in praise and prayer. 
God, for example, may choose to address us by the pen 

* Preacher, December 29, 1858. 

f It has been said that " Grod has himself provided a perfect system 
of praise" — but that is the very point to be proved, not taken for 
granted ! In regard to the New Testament and the new dispensation, 
we deny the statement. There are many very precious songs in the 
New Testament, but besides, there is a treasury of rich and varied ma- 
terials for both praise and prayer; and to prepare and use these abun- 
dant provisions for the edification of her children, is the solemn duty 
of the church, whether in preaching the word, prayer or praise. This 
is what our General Assembly has done and is still doing. 



180 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

of an inspired Jew, and by this instrumentality, living 
as he did under a dispensation of types and shadows, he 
may record for our instruction many matters pertaining 
to " burnt offerings/' " incense of rams/' " bullocks upon 
the altar/' " organs/' " timbrels/' " dances," " cornets," 
" trumpets/' "new moons/' &c, and the holy resolutions 
of the pious of that day, to observe those typical rites 
and ceremonies, which were then commanded duties, 
may come down to us as the inspired record of the zeal, 
self-denial and holy fervor of the pious Jews. "The 
only wise God" thus chooses his own method of address- 
ing us, expounded as it is by a further record — the Gos- 
pel dispensation taking the place of the Mosaic — the New 
Testament a commentary on the Old. But when we 
come to speak to God — to express " the desires of our 
hearts, in the name of Christ, and thankfully acknow- 
ledge his mercies," or perform the act of praise, "which 
terminates in God, and by which we confess and admire 
his perfections, works and benefits," circumstances are 
entirely changed. God may obviously speak to us in a 
manner and form in which it would be mockery and pro- 
faneness for us to speak to Him. It follows, therefore, 
that we may piously and profitably read or hear many 
many things found in the Scriptures which we may not 
employ, even though originally of a devotional nature, 
in speaking to God. 

For example, how incongruous and improper would it 
be for a minister to introduce into a prayer the greater 
part of the 150th Psalm, as follows : " Q God, we praise 
thee with the sound of a trumpet, we praise thee with 
stringed instruments and organs," &c. Indeed this is so 
obvious, and strikes the common sense of Christians so 
universally, that probably no person ever heard any min- 
ister of any denomination use such a prayer either in 
private or public. In the temple service these were com- 
manded duties, and therefore their literal performance 
was a religious act, and a refusal to obey would have 
been sin. But now that that method of praising God 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 181 

with trumpets, high-sounding cymbals, organs, dances, 
is all done away, " to speak to God" in prayer, and " in 
our prayers to praise him," by expressing "our desire" 
or intention to employ this ancient service, " organs," 
"dances," &c, in his worship, all feel to be unsuitable; 
and probably no one ever ventured so far to disregard this 
common feeling of propriety in the sacred and solemn duty 
of prayer, unfolding as we do the most secret recesses of 
the heart to the Omniscient eye, as to make such an ex- 
periment upon the good sense and Christian conscientious- 
ness of mankind. How then, we ask, can it be most 
suitable and proper for us to " speak to God" in praise, 
which is an equally solemn and direct address to the 
" Searcher of all hearts," language which we shrink 
from in the act of prayer ? Nothing but common usage 
has sanctioned a distinction, where obviously there is no 
essential difference. We are far from supposing it ne- 
cessary in all acceptable prayer and praise, " to assume 
every thought and expression for our own." But we 
maintain that if the whole book of Psalms is of Divine 
authority for praise literally, and in preference to all 
other inspired matter, its advocates fall into the forego- 
ing difficulties and inconsistencies. No scriptural diver- 
sity between praise and prayer can explain or justify such 
incongruities. 

In the foregoing Letters we have purposely avoided 
any extended comparison of the two versifications or 
" paraphrases" of the Psalms most commonly used. It 
has indeed been boldly asserted that we " exalt Watts 
above David." But it is scarcely necessary to point out 
the obvious distinction between the authorship of the 
Psalms, which all admit to be inspired, and the very 
humble part performed by the uninspired arranger of a 
poetical " paraphrase of the Psalms." God spake the 
Psalms by David — or David spake by the Holy Ghost. 
Dr. Watts writes a poetical paraphrase of the Psalms. 
Is he therefore a better writer than David ? No more 
than House is a better writer than David. No Presbyte- 
16 



182 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

rian of ordinary sense ever conceived such a sentiment. 
It must have originated in another quarter. 

On the other hand the theory and practice of our 
brethren appear to take almost as various hues as the 
chameleon. Thus in their " Testimony" they say — "We 
testify for the book of Psalms in & faithful translation." * 
Dr. Cooper, on the contrary, says : " The only question 
is, has the translator observed the order and arr augment 
of the original, and is the idea fairly and fully brought 
out V 9 But this is to abandon entirely the principle of 
" a faithful translation." All Dr. C. contends for is 
" the inspired order and arrangement — and that the idea 
be fairly and fully brought out." On Dr. C's. principle, 
all his " explanations" of the Psalms before singing them, 
are inspired, provided he has observed the original " order 
and arrangement," and has fairly and fully brought out 
the idea" — conditions which he, of course, ordinarily 
observes. Besides, Dr. C's. principle condemns Rouse in 
forty or fifty gross departures from "the order and ar- 
rangement of the original." For illustrations, see a 
previous Letter. Dr. C. of course repudiates the dictum 
of his brother Dr. P., viz. that Rouse, " like the prose 
translation of the whole Bible, is substantially correct 
and faithful, and for the same reason, is to be regarded 
as the word of God!" — Preacher, Aug. 9, 1844. 

Very different is the judgment of a writer in "The 
Christian Witness," a Seceder organ. He utterly rejects 
Dr. C's. theory, thus : " It may be said that such rhyming 
and syllabification do not add to the ideas of the original. 
So you may make a song or sermon out of a single sen- 
tence, without adding a single idea not contained in the 
text. But then you give us not the pure word of God." 

Indeed this latter writer candidly admits that the use 
of "redundant words, paraphrastic phrases, diminutive 
expressions," &c, such as Dr. C. approves, is a virtual 
surrender of the whole question of " inspired Psalmody." 
Thus he says : " If we may weaken the sense and add a 
* Testimony United Presbyterian church, p. 46. 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 183 

word to make a jingle ; if we may impair the force, and 
cut off or supply a term or phrase, to make up the num- 
ber of syllables in a line, or the number of lines in a 
verse, in order to please our fancy, may we not by the 
same process of reasoning, add a whole stanza, or make 
a whole song of our own composition f '" 

A similar view is taken in an article published in "The 
Preacher."* The writer says: "The permission to 
rhymers to add and eke, and clip and twist the Holy 
Scriptures, for the sake of a rhyming Psalmody, has 
opened a gate through which every sect, and every con- 
gregation, and every poet, afflicted with an itch of wri- 
ting, has driven a hymn or a hymn book into the church 
of God. Now, truly, I see no good reason why one 
church should have authority to give such pemnisaion, and 
another deprived of it." This of course condemns 
Bouse. If the Associate or Associate Reformed church, 
he says, " may add to the word of God icords of its own 
sufficient to make half a dozen Psalms more or less," why 
may not others "add the matter of a dozen!" And 
the conclusion to which he comes emphatically is this : 
" All supporters of rhyming Psalmody are disqualified 
for pleading the cause of an inspired Psalmody." 

In closing his article, this writer plainly tells his breth- 
ren that they use a version which has no authority in the 
Bible. Hear him : 

a We have no authority, then, from Scripture, for ma- 
king or singing of rhyming Psalms; we are under no 
necessity to have or to use them." 

But while some of these brethren, like the last writer, 
would repudiate Rouse (and every other system in rhyme) 
as uninspired , it still has zealous defenders. Thus Rev. 
Dr. Kerr : " We would have no more objection to a com- 
parison of that which is known as Rouse's version, with 
the Psalms of David, than we would to a comparison of 
King James* translation of the Bible with the original 
Scripture."*)* 

* For January 30, 1S55. 
j Preacher, August 9, 1847. 



184 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

Thus we are back on the basis of the " Testimony," 
viz. " a faithful translation," " the unadulterated word 
of God," " songs composed in heaven !" 

Nor do these brethren harmonize much better in re- 
gard to another aspect of the same subject. In a debate 
on the subject of " Improvement of Psalmody," in the 
Associate Synod, * Dr. Cooper said : " Something must 
be done. The interests of the church and the extension 
of our cause are involved. I refer members to a letter 
from brother Herron. He says we do not appreciate the 
matter here. We are familiar with this version, but it 
is not so elsewhere. He has great difficulty in persuading 
the people to make use of this version, owing to the 
awkwardness of the expressions. They are becoming 
tired of it. It makes me feel very unhappy when I 
think of the awkwardness of them, and know that they 
might be so easily improved. Those who have had any 
experience on this subject must feel the force of his ob- 
jections. Any poetry two hundred years old must be of 
such a character as to excite a smile. The pronunciation 
and phraseology are altogether different from what they 
are now." So also a writer in the " United Presbyterian " 
" despairs of ever bringing the Catholic church back to 
David's Psalms," without a new and better version — and 
without such version, he adds, "we must rest content, 
either to give up a Divine appointment, or remain a little 
separated branch of the church to all coming genera- 
tions." 

That there are very serious doctrinal and historical er- 
rors in " Rouse's paraphrase," does not admit of a doubt. 
Thus Psalm 69 : 4 : " They that would destroy me, be- 
ing mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty : then I restored 
that which I took not away." This Psalm is a most re- 
markable prophecy of the Messiah. " The Holy Spirit," 
observes Scott, "evidently spoke of the sufferings of 
Christ, and the glory that should follow. Indeed it is so 
manifest a prophecy of Christ, that we should consider 
* May, 1854. 



EXCLUSIVE THEORY UNTENABLE. 185 

him as the speaker in most parts of it." How then has 
House paraphrased the verse quoted above ? 

They that would me destroy, and aro 
Mine enemies wrongfully, 
Are mighty : so that I took not 
To render forced icas I. 

11 Christ made satisfaction for our sins, and restored 
that honor to the Divine law which he had not taken 
away." — Scott But was Christ "forced" to do this? 
Was he forced to make satisfaction for sinners ? To sup- 
pose this is to overthrow the essential nature of the Di- 
vine sacrifice ; to misrepresent the inspired record, and 
to contradict the Saviour himself : "I lay down my life 
for the sheep. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it 
down of myself." 

The rendering in our system is liable to none of these 
objections : 

'Twas then I paid that dreadful dobt 
Which men could never pay, 
And gave those honors to thy law, 
Which sinners took away. 

The following from Psalm 18 : 25, is nearly as unintel- 
ligible to most persons as the Hebrew : 

Thou gracious to the gracious art, 
To upright men upright : 
Pure to the pure, fro ward thou kyth'st 
Unto the froward wight. 

We cannot enter into further details. But in closing 
this Letter we respectfully ask, ought not the arguments 
and facts of this and previous discussions to lead these 
brethren seriously to reflect upon certain moral aspects 
of their position ? Have they not virtually cut off 
from the church of Christ, the Free church, the Estab- 
lished church, and all the other Scottish Presbyterian 
churches, except a small " fraction." I say virtually — 
for of course they have not the power. But is not this 
the fair and legitimate result of their exclusive principles 
and practice ? Yes, if Dr. Candlish or Dr. Cunningham 
16* 



186 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

were to come to this country, they could not be admitted 
to commune with these brethren ! Certainly not, if they 
would treat those distinguished persons as they do their 
own elders, who sing " the mere productions of men." 



LETTER XIV. 



MISREPRESENTATIONS OF DR. WATTS EXPOSED — THE USE OF HYMNS 
IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, PROVED BY DR. m'mASTER, MERLE 

D'AUBIGNE, NORTH BRITISH REVIEW, NEANDER, AND OTHERS 

LETTER OF PLINY — TESTIMONY OF EUSEBIUS — HYMNS CONDEMNED 
BY THE COUNCIL OF LAODICEA, WHICH ALSO FORBID, ANY TO SING 

EXCEPT THE CHORISTERS CASE OF THE HERETIC PAUL OF 

SAMOSATA — TRUTHS ESTABLISHED BY THAT CASE. 

My Deah Sir : — In this, my closing Letter, I propose 
to examine with some care various injurious charges 
made against the memory of Dr. Watts, and intended to 
reflect odium upon those who employ his poetical labors 
in the worship of God. In view of the principles and 
arguments of former Letters, how strange that men of 
piety and sense, who have written much on these topics, 
should utter such a sentiment as this: "The principle 
which maintains that these Psalms (of David) are not 
suitable to be employed in the worship of the church un- 
der the gospel dispensation, is a discpvery of modern 
times. " * But who maintains such a principle ? Certain- 
ly no Presbyterian. Dr. Watts and some others have 
said this in regard to certain parts of the Psalms — but 
never, to the best of my knowledge, of "the Psalms" as 
a whole. See how easy by a little twist of this sort, to 
caricature the sentiments of any man or set of men ? 

A similar mis-statemenfc represents Dr. W. as having 
* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 6. 



VINDICATION OF DR. WATTS. 187 

"conceived tlie idea that the Psalms as given by inspira- 
tion, (observe, the Psalms, the whole Psalms!) are unfit 
to be sung." * Here is a similar perversion. Again, 
Dr. K. tells us — " Isaac Watts conceived the idea * * 
that generally they (i. e., the Psalms as given by in- 
spiration) tended to ( sink our devotion and hurt oui 
praise.' " In reply, I again deny the statement as a mat 
ter of fact. Isaac Watts never " conceived such an idea." 
The words as partly quoted, are at the close of an argu- 
ment in which Dr. Watts expressly says he is speaking 
of " several passages," and " the application of many 
verses of David ;" he is speaking of " the omission of 
whole lines and verses," by a certain class of intelligent 
singers ; " whereas," he adds, " the more unthinking go 
singing in cheerful ignorance wherever the clerk (or pre- 
centor) leads them, across the river Jordan, through the 
land G-ebal, Amnion, and Amelek ; * * they enter into 
the temple, they bind their sacrifices with cords to the 
horns of the altar, they join with the high-sounding 
cymbals, their thoughts are bedarkened with the smoke 
of incense and covered with Jewish veils." Now it is of 
these special circumstances and expressions that Dr. 
Watts says — " I fear they do but sink our devotion and 
hurt our worship." Is this the same as saying that 
" generally they (the Psalms) tend to sink our devo- 
tion and hurt our praise 1" Dr. Watts is speaking of 
certain special Jewish peculiarities which he admits to be 
" the beauties and perfections of a Hebrew song, and 
adapted by Infinite Wisdom to raise the affections of the 
saints of that day" — but in his judgment adapted "to 
sink the devotion " of Christians at the present time. 
Dr. Watts' design and reference were to these special and 
peculiar features of apart of the Psalms — the editor of the 
"Preacher" quotes his words as applicable to the Psalms 
generally ! Is this a fair and righteous use of the words? 
We have already stated that the Presbyterian church 
has never sanctioned Dr. Watts' prose writings, nor is 
* Preacher, September 15, 1852. 



188 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

she responsible for their sentiments. They may be right 
or wrong, true or false — they are not ours. When, there- 
fore, with great parade and triumph certain objectionable 
statements are quoted against us from those writings, this 
can scarcely be reconciled with the principles of fair and 
honorable discussion, which should govern all, especially 
Christians. This is true, even when the views of Dr. W. 
are correctly quoted — much more when they are pervert- 
ed as above. 

Again — Dr. Watts is charged with " using arguments 
not only unsatisfactory, but impious/' because he says he 
kept his " grand design in view, viz. ' to teach his author 
to speak like a Christian/ or 'the common sense (or ex- 
perience) of a Christian/ " But let Dr. W. explain his 
own meaning. " My design is," he says, "to accommo- 
date the book of Psalms to Christian (in opposition to 
Jewish) worship. And in order to this, it is necessary 
to divest David, Asaph, &c , of every other character but 
that of a Psalmist and a saint, and to make them always 
speak the common sense (or experience) of a Christian." 
In other words, he designed that David should "leave 
Judaism behind," instead of praising God with " incense 
of rams , trumpets, cornets, dances" &c. So also in an- 
other oft-quoted and much abused passage, where he says 
that "David should be converted into a Christian :" yet 
in the very same sentence he explains himself, as follows, 
viz. " that a good part of the Psalms should be fitted for 
the use of the churches" in "a j>araphrase in which 
dark expressions should he enlightened, Levitical ceremo- 
nies and Hebrew forms of speech changed into the worship 
of the gospel, and explained (as certain preachers do) in 
the language of our time and nation." This is what Dr. 
Watts meant by teaching "David to speak the common 
sense of a Christian," and "converting him into a Chris- 
tian." 

We do not defend the use of this phraseology— "con- 
verting David into a Christian." It sounds harshly, 
though in the same style with the expression, "teach the 



VINDICATION OF DR. WATTS. 189 

Psalmist to speak English, " i. e., by "translation." 1 * 
Yet a very little candor would satisfy any intelligent man 
that his meaning was unexceptionable : "For why should 
I now address God my Saviour in a song, with burnt 
sacrifices- of fatlings and with the incense of rams? 
Why should I pray to be sprinkled with hyssop, or recur 
to the blood of bullocks and goats ? Why should I bind 
my sacrifices with cords to the horns of the altar 1" &c. 
By teaching his " author to speak like a Christian," Dr. 
Watts therefore plainly refers to Christianity as opposed 
to Judaism ; and means precisely what Dr. Pressly prac- 
tices every Sabbath morning when he explains a Psalm 
containing these ceremonial and Jewish expressions ! 
And yet Dr. P. has the boldness to ask — " Does not Dr. 
Watts virtually arraign the wisdom of the Holy One of 
Israel and undertake to teach him c to speak like a Chris- 
tian V " We reply — Does not Dr. P, "virtually arraign 
the wisdom of the Holy One of Israel " when in explain- 
ing these passages of the Psalms, he teaches the people 
to sing them as he interprets them by the New Testa- 
ment ? Is not this conduct of Dr. P. quite as " deroga- 
tory to the Spirit of Inspiration " as the language of Dr. 
Watts ? 

"It would appear then," adds Dr. P., "that in the 
estimation of this man (Dr. W.) the teaching of the 
Holy Spirit which the Psalmist enjoyed was very insuf- 
ficient, and that it was necessary that one in modern 
times should undertake the office of teaching him * to 
speak like a Christian/ " f Well, as Dr. P. constantly 
practices this teaching of the Psalmist, we hope he will 
not henceforth be very severe on Dr. Watts — especially 
as the chief difference between the two sorts of teaching 
is, that Dr. P. teaches in prose, but Dr. W. in poetry ! 

Again, Dr. W. is charged with affirming that parts of 
the Psalms "tend to excite unholy passions," and "ex- 

* Here is a parallel case : " Luther * * * undertook the difficult 
task of making these Divine teachers (the apostles, <fcc.) speak his 
mother tongue.'' D'AubigiiCj History of the Reformation, vol. ?>, p. SI. 

f Pressly on Psalmody, p. 110. 



190 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

press resentment and hatred against the Psalmist's per- 
sonal enemies." * Thus he says, " Among the impreca- 
tions that David uses against his adversaries in the Psalm 
(35th) I have endeavored to turn the edge of some of 
them from personal enemies against the implacable ene- 
mies of God in the world." On this last passage Dr. P. 
remarks — " Here the reader will see that David is sup- 
posed to have uttered imprecations against personal ene- 
mies. Could he, then, have been under the influence of 
the Holy Spirit ? " We reply — certainly the Psalmist 
could not " have been under the influence of the Holy 
Spirit," if his imprecations were directed against those 
who were his personal enemies, considered in his private 
character as a member of society ; or if he was governed 
by feelings of private revenge. But was not David a 
king ? Did he not shed much blood f Did he not sus- 
tain the character of a judge in Israel, as also that of an 
eminent protector of the church ? Were not the heathen 
around " his adversaries" in all these respects ? Or does 
Dr. P. think it equally unchristian to " utter imprecations 
against enemies " in any of these relations ? Take for 
example, the familiar case of David and Goliah. Does 
Dr. Pressly think it was " unchristian" in David to pray 
that Goliah might be slain ? Was not Goliah his adver- 
sary, acting as David did in the person of a defender of 
his nation and his church ? Or to go farther back, did 
not Joshua and the judges " utter imprecations " against 
their " adversaries" whom they were commanded to ex- 
terminate, certainly not as private individuals, but as 
public persons ? 

So also when David uses the following prayer, we per- 
ceive what Dr. Watts means by " sharp invectives against 
personal enemies," and " imprecations against David's 
adversaries." " Consume them in wrath, consume them 
that they may not be." Psalm 59 : 13. "In this Psalm," 
remarks Dr. Scott, " David expresses what his thoughts 
and attentions were, when Saul sent officers to watch his 
* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 99. 



VINDICATION OF DR. WATTS. 191 

house all night, to slay him." And on the 13th verse 
quoted above he adds — "It is probable that David 
meant the disgrace, degradation, and gradual extirpation 
of Saul's family, for their opposition to the Lord's 
anointed ^David himself) and all their imprecations and 
calumnies against him." This is precisely what Dr. 
Watts means by " David's personal enemies" — viz. ene- 
mies to his person as the King of the Jews, or ordained 
to be so — enemies to his throne, and to his life, &c. 

These examples also show the meaning of Dr. W. 
when he speaks of " some dreadful curse against men 
proposed to our lips, which is so contrary to the new 
commandment of loving our enemies," and " almost op- 
posite to the spirit of the gospel." Certainly Dr. W. is 
right in affirming that there is nothing in " the spirit of 
the gospel" requiring us to destroy and extermiDate the 
heathen, as was the duty of Joshua and David. "Why," 
remarks Dr. W., " why must I join with David in Ms 
legal or prophetic language, to curse my enemies, when 
my Saviour in his sermons has taught me to love and 
bless them?" The reader will observe the qualifying 
clause — " in his legal or prophetic language." Take a 
few examples from the Psalms. " He teacheth my hands 
to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by my hands, i" 
have wounded them that they were not able to rise : they 
are fallen under my feet. Thou hast given me the necks 
of my enemiss ) that I might destroy them that hate me. 
Arise, Lord, disappoint him, cast him down. When 
my enemies are turned back they shall fall and perish at 
thy presence." 

There are scores, perhaps hundreds of similar passages, 
some of them much stronger in expression. To David, 
as the anointed king and captain of God's people, they 
were highly appropriate. To that " legal" or ceremonial 
dispensation, when it was David's duty to fight and ex- 
terminate the surrounding heathen nations, this language 
was most suitable. " But," argues Dr. Watts, " as no 
such duties now devolve upon Christians; why must they 



192 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

'join with David in this legal or prophetic language ?' 
I cannot use it against l my enemies/ for I am com- 
manded ' to pray for and bless them.' Why, then, 
should I use David's language toward foes long since 
dead, and which at best, was i legal or prophetic/ and 
thus altogether peculiar to that people, .day and dispen- 
sation t" 

These illustrations also explain Dr. Watts' meaning 
when he represents " persons of seriousness as forced to 
omit whole lines and verses, because they dare not sing 
without understanding, and almost against their con- 
sciences." " I have left out/' he adds, " some whole 
Psalms, and several parts of others, that tend to fill the 
mind with overwhelming sorrows or sharp resentments. " 
The meaning of this is already explained. The reason 
which governed Dr. Watts in these omissions, Dr. P. says 
is this — " Some of them (the Psalms) are of dangerous 
tendency ! " But where has Dr. Watts said so ? 

" We meet a line/' he says, " which belongs but to 
one action or hour of the life of David, that breaks off 
our song in the midst ; our consciences are affrighted 
.lest we should speak a falselwod unto God * * * before 
we have time to reflect that this may he sung only as a 
history of ancient saints" " There are a thousand lines 
in it (the book of Psalms) which were not made for a 
church in our days to assume as its own." Dr. W. speaks 
of the dark, u carnal," shadowy dispensation* of Judaism, 
which Dr. Owen says " gave no clear and distinct appre- 
hensions of the future state of glory." But is this the 
same as to say that the Psalms which treat of that dis- 
pensation " are of dangerous tendency." He agrees 
with Dr. Jno. Owen, that the Jewish system of " worship 
was carnal and outwardly pompous" — also that certain 
parts of " these Psalms of Jewish composure ought to 
be translated for Christian worship," and that some of 
them, and parts of others, may be properly omitted, as 
never having been designed by their Divine Author for 
the purposes of praise under the gospel. 



VINDICATION OF DR. WATTS. 193 

But is this the same as " slandering the Holy Spirit 
or offering a fearful indignity to the Spirit of Inspira- 
tion/' * These examples will serve to show with how 
much truth Dr. W. is charged with representing " the 
Psalmist as giving vent to feelings of malevolence toicard 
his personal enemies" <fcc. He admits that to persons 
who "have not time to reflect" how certain parts may be 
properly sung (viz. "as a history of ancient saints/') 
the tendency may be to produce " overwhelming sorrows 
and sharp resentments/' But he adduces this rather as 
an abuse, which ought to be corrected, than a legitimate 
result from the right use of the Psalms. 

But it is in his versification of the 119th Psalm that 
Dr. Watts is affirmed to have treated the writings of the 
Holy Spirit with special indignity ! " I have collected and 
disposed/' he says, " the most useful verses of this Psalm 
under eighteen different heads, and formed a Divine song 
on each of them ; but the verses are much transposed to 
attain some degree of connection." Dr. P. considers this 
as indicating that he could not have regarded the Psalm 
as "the production of Infinite Wisdom." " Is the mind 
of the Spirit," he asks, " exhibited so awkwardly as to 
render it necessary that the verses should be much trans- 
posed to attain some degree of connection ?" f But here 
Dr. P. exhibits much more zeal than wisdom or prudence. 
We know nothing is more common in the pulpit than to 
classify and group under heads the members of a para- 
graph. Thus in the Epistles, the rapid intellect of the 
apostle Paul, under the Divine inspiration, passes with 
admirable vehemence over the parts of a great subject, so 
that in lecturing on his writings, it often greatly aids in 
understanding the sense, to have such a grouping together 
of topics. Yet the preacher or lecturer does not suppose 
he is thereby insulting the Holy Spirit ! So in the book 
of Proverbs, many whole chapters are made up of sep- 
arate sentences, whose connection it is very difficult to 

* Prcssly on Psalmody, pp. 99, 100, 71. 
f Ibid, p. 114. 

17 



194 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

perceive. Thus, also, in the 119th Psalm, the eminently 
pious and practical Matthew Henry says, " There is sel- 
dom o,ny coherence between the verses, but like Solomon's 
Proverbs, it is a chest of gold rings, 'not a chain of 
gold links/ " But if Dr. P. is correct, Matthew Henry 
must have believed the book of Proverbs, as well as this 
Psalm, " to be very awkwardly exhibited by the Holy 
Spirit !" To such extravagance will men rush in pursuit 
of some favorite notion. 

It is obvious, therefore, that in grouping the verses of 
this Psalm under eighteen heads, according to topics, Dr. 
W. has done nothing worse than Dr. P. himself does, 
when he lectures on other parts of the Scriptures \ noth- 
ing which Henry does not admit to be necessary and 
proper on account of the want of " coherence between 
the verses." Nor is Watts more to blame than Henry 
and Pressly ! Certainly what is plain sober sense in 
Matthew Henry, cannot be so horribly impious in Dr. 
Watts ! Among one hundred and seventy-six verses, 
which Henry says " seldom have any coherence," nearly 
all spoken of the law of God, Watts has classified those 
which from their meaning seem properly to fall together. 
His object was good — not to offer insult to the Holy 
Spirit, but to aid the feeble understandings of mea in 
their attempts to show forth the praises of the infinite 
and incomprehensible God. Where two or more verses 
were exactly or nearly in the same terms, he classified 
them together, &c. In all this he did precisely what 
every able lecturer on the Holy Scriptures does in the pul- 
pit, in another part of public worship, to explain, apply 
and honor the blessed truth of God. 

u But," inquires Dr. P., " shall a sinful mortal select 
such verses as he considers i most useful/ and pass over the 
remainder as unworthy of notice ?" * But does not Dr. 
P. "pass over" the 20th verse of Psalm 72, and reject 
it from his Psalmody ? Does not he, "a sinful mortal, 
pass over " a number of other parts of the Psalms ; espe- 
* Pressly on Fsalmocly, p. 114. 



VINDICATION OF DR. WATTS. 195 

cially most of the inspired titles ? Does he not " pass 
over " all the other " inspired Psalms, hymns and spirit- 
ual songs " in Isaiah and the other prophets, &c., as u un- 
worthy of notice " in his system of praise ! As to the 
cut of transposition, we have already shown that there 
are thirty or forty such cases in Rouse! Did he "know 
better than the Holy Spirit the order" &c. ? 

Again, Dr. Watts is quoted as saying, that "he is bold 
to maintain the great principle" of his work, " that if 
the brightest genius on earth, or an angel from heaven, 
should translate David, and keep close to the sense, he 
could not make a suitable Psalm book." * 

From this Dr. K. infers that Watts did not design to 
give the "correct sense of David." But is there no re- 
striction in Dr. Watts' language ? What is the fact ? 
The paragraph quoted, opens thus : " I must confess I 
have never seen any version or paraphrase of the Psalms 
in their own Jewish sense, so perfect as to discourage 
all further attempts. But whoever undertakes the noble 
work, let him bring with him a soul devoted to piety, an 
exalted genius, and withal a studious application. For 
David's harp abhors a profane finger," &c. Then a few 
lines farther down in the same paragraph, comes the ex- 
tract mutilated by the " Preacher :" "But still I am bold 
to maintain the great principle on which my present work 
is founded ; and that is, that if the brightest genius on 
earth, or an angel from heaven, should translate David, 
and keep close to the sense and style of the inspired author, 
we should only obtain thereby a bright and heavenly copy 
of the devotions of the Jewish king, but it could never 
make the fittest Psalm book for a Christian people ;" i. e., 
for the gospel church. 

No comments are necessary to point out the distinctly 
limited meaning of Dr. Watts. He is speaking of "the 
Jewish sense" of the Psalms — he regards them as they 
are, " the devotions of the Jewish king " — and it is in 
this view he says he does not design "to keep close to 
* Dr. Kerr, in Proacher. 



106 letters on psalmody. 

the sense and style of the inspired author !" Yet who 
would ever dream that this was his meaning from the 
extract made by the " Preacher V But when this is 
made known it spoils the whole argument. Whether 
this is fair treatment of an author, others can decide. 

Again, I quote from a printed volume thus: "Dr. 
Watts, whose compositions are sung in public and family 
worship by a great majority of professed Christians in 
the United States, maintained that the Psalms were too 
Jewish to be sung with edification by Christians." " And 
the idea is very prevalent that the booh of Psalms is not 
adapted to Christian worship." 

Both these extracts are untrue. Dr. Watts maintained 
that " a part of the Psalms are too Jewish," and " the 
idea is prevalent," not that u thc book of Psalms," but 
parts of the Psalms "are not adapted to worship" under 
the gospel. 

But we cannot extend these illustrations. They show 
what most unrighteous judgment Dr. Watts has received. 
His paraphrase of the Psalms is "the mere production 
of an English poet" — he is charged with having "ad- 
vanced principles which strike at the inspiration of the 
Scriptures," * and with "speaking reproachfully of the 
Psalms." With what small show of reason these assaults 
are made, the foregoing examples will prove. In his 
" Treatise on Prayer," he uses this language : " If we find 
our hearts very barren, and hardly know how to frame a 
prayer before God of ourselves, it has been oftentimes 
useful to take a book in our hand, wherein are contained 
some spiritual meditations in a petitionary form, some 
devout reflections, or excellent patterns of prayer; and 
above all, the Psalms of David, some of the prophe- 
cies of Isaiah, some chapters in the gospels or any of the 
epistles. Thus we may lift up our hearts to God," &c. 
"Above all, the Psalms of David!" — And yet we are 
told that Dr. Watts " spoke disparagingly of the book of 
Psalms !" And in his " Advice to a Young Man," he 
* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 51. 



VINDICATION OF DR. WATTS. 197 

says : u To direct your carriage toward G od, converse 
particularly with the book of Psalms." Instead of be- 
ing " the mere effusions of men/' nothing would be 
easier than to prove by actual comparison, that in a large 
number of his versifications, he has given all that is in- 
spired in the Psalm, viz. not the very language of our 
prose translation, which was the work of uninspired men ; 
not the poetry of Rouse, but the sentiments doctrinal and 
devotional, as fully and fairly brought out in our system 
as in that of Rouse. 

As to the rest, Dr. TV. says : " I think I may assume 
the pleasure of being the first who hath brought down 
the royal author into the common affairs of the Christian 
life, and led the Psalmist of Israel into the church of 
Christ without anything of a Jew about him." Yet 
there are those who assert that it was Dr. TV's, intention 
" impiously to reject the Psalmist from the church !" 

We admit, with the " North British Review," " that in 
his old age" Dr. Watts unfortunately attempted u to set 
philosophers right on the subjects of space, liberty and 
necessity, and even sought to re-adjust, for theologians, 
the doctrine of the Trinity." * It was " in his old age " — 
when in some degree borne down by years and bodily in- 
firmity. But in his " Preface to his Lyric Poems/' he 
speaks of " the eternal God becoming an infant of 
da} 7 s, * * * agonies of sorrow loading the soul of 
him who was G-od over all, and the Sovereign of life 
stretching his arms on a cross, bleeding and expiring." 
-What could be more full and explicit than these stanzas 
from the 45th and 63d of his hymns : 

See where the great incarnate God 

Fills a majestic throne, 
While from the skies his awful voice 

Bears the last judgment down — 

I am the first, and I the last, 

Through endless years the same; 
7" am, is my memorial still, 

And my eternal name. 

* North BritiA Review, for August, 1S57. 
17* 



198 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

"What equal honors shall we bring 
To Thee, Lord our God the Lamb, 

When all the notes that angels sing 
Are far inferior to thy name. 

These are but specimens of many pages of the same 
import, which might be extracted from his writings. 
Nor is he less explicit in regard to the distinct personali- 
ty and divinity of the Holy Spirit. 

In Dr. Watts' work on the Trinity, published after his 
Psalms and Hymns, he says : 

" 1. Those very names, titles, attributes, works and wor- 
ship, which are peculiar to God, and incommunicable to 
another, are ascribed to three, by God himself, in his 
word ; which three are distinguished by the names of 
Father, Son and Spirit. 

" 2. There are, also, some other circumstantial, but con- 
vincing evidences, that the Son and the Spirit have the 
true and proper Godhead ascribed to them, as well as the 
Father. 

" 3. Thence it necessarily follows, that these three, viz. 
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have such an inti- 
mate and real communion in that one Godhead, as is 
sufficient to justify the ascription of those peculiar and 
distinguishing Divine characters to them. 

"4. Though the Father, Son and Spirit are but one 
God, yet there are such distinct properties, actions, char- 
acters and circumstances ascribed to these three, as are 
usually ascribed to three distinct persons among men." 
■ In our Letter No. XII., reference was made to the an- 
cient literature of hymns. A few further suggestions and 
some quotations from recent publications, are all that our 
space permits. 

1. Dr. M'Master, author of the " Apology for the book 
of Psalms/' admits "the existence of hymns of human 
composition at an early day, and their use in the 
church/' he adds, "is with us no matter of dispute" — 
u they were frequently used in public worship/' &c. * 

* Apology, p. 34 



HYMNS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 199 

2. Another important witness to the same truth, is the 
eminent Merle D' Aubigne, the learned author of " The 
History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century." 
In that wonderful revolution which shook the Papacy to 
its foundations, " men could not confine themselves/' he 
says, " to mere translations of ancient hymns. The souls 
of Luther and many of his cotemporaries * * * poured 
forth their feelings in religious songs. * * * Thus the 
hymns were revived, which in the first century had 
consoled the pangs of the martyrs." In these, he tells 
us, "poetry and music blended their most heaveoly fea- 
tures." * The distinguished historian traces these 
" hymns of human composure " back to the very period 
of primitive Christianity, " the first century." 

3. A third important witness is the " North British 
Review." After quoting from the earliest historian of the 
church, f who has preserved " a fragment of the second 
century," the hymn beginning, " We praise thee, we bless 
thee," &c, the Review adds, " this hymn is invested 
with a charm, * * * for it was the song which martyr 
after martyr sang so cheerfully as they marched from 
prison to their death place." J 

The same authority, after citing a number of ancient 
hymns by Ephream the Syrian, uses the following lan- 
guage : 

"In many cases, hymns like these were the sole con- 
servatives of gospel truth when heterodoxy grew and 
flourished beneath the Papal influence. They were too 
pure to be defiled by Romish contaminations, * * * they 
have come down to us in all the splendor of their first 
purity. * * * We ought to love them the more, because 
they flowed with clear and living streams through the 
barren wastes of Popery." || 

This threefold testimony (Dr. M'Master, Merle D'Au- 

* History of Reformation, vol. 3,. p. 177. 
f Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, b. 28. 
t Xorth British Review, August, 1857. 
li Ibid. 



200 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

bigne and the North British Review) furnishes a full and 
triumphant reply to the vaunting challenge so rashly put 
forth and repeated, as follows : " If you can find a sin- 
gle instance from the day that heard the melodies of the 
sweet singer of God's Israel, on down to the day that heard 
the horrible blasphemies of Paul of Samosata, of a single 
church member, who on one solitary occasion used in God's 
worship any other than the hymus contained in the book 
usually called the ' Psalms of David/ then I will give 
up this whole controversy." * 

If any further authority is required, we have it in the 
illustrious Neander, the prince of modern church his- 
torians — " The Psalmody of the early church consisted 
in part of the Psalms of David, and in part of hymns 
composed for the purpose." f Nor does ecclesiastical 
history for the first four centuries present so much as a 
fragment of evidence that any individual or Council made 
objection to these hymns until we come to the Synod 
of Laodicea, A. D. 344-346. That Synod passed an 
act prohibiting " all hymns as of dangerous tendency, 
and restricting their churches to the Psalter and other 
canonical songs of the Scriptures." J The Synod, it 
seems, tolerated " the other songs of Scripture," which 
our brethren call " corruptions." But the historian adds 
this significant clause — " The Arians of that age also 
opposed these ancient hymns, for different reasons! 1 1| 
The reason is not given, but perhaps the present practice 
of the Arians of Ulster in retaining Rouse may suggest 
an explanation. 

The celebrated letter of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan 
(A. D. 103-4) states that having tortured several of the 
Christians, he discovered no other crime in their assem- 
blies, than that " they were accustomed to meet before 

* United Presbyterian, of Cincinnati. 

f Allgem. Kirsch. 

j Neander says that the same Synod, in the loth canon, " ordered 
that no one should sing at Divine service, except the choristers.'' — Bib- 
lical Repertory, January, 1832. 

|| Primitive Church, by Coleman, p. 376. 



HYMNS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 201 

day, carmen Christo quasi Deo secum dicere invicem — 
"to sing to Christ as God in alternate responses." Ter- 
tullian, a century later, referring to this letter of Pliny, 
says — " Every one was invited in their public worship 
to sing unto God, according to his ability r , de proprio 
ingenio — a song composed by himself, or one selected 
from the Scriptures. " * Those who possessed poetical 
talent, prepared suitable hymns, and recited them in the 
public assemblies. 

The historian Eusebius, also quotes Caius, a cotem- 
porary of Tertullian, thus — " Who knows not * * * how 
many songs and odes of the brethren there are, written 
from the beginning, jam pridem — ' a long time ago/ by 
believers, and offering praise to Christ as the word of 
God, ascribing divinity to him." *j" Many of these 
hymns were preserved and appealed to in subsequent ages 
in the controversies with the Arians and other enemies 
of the truth. J Origen, who flourished A. D. 250, Dyo- 
nisius, and other early writers, often cited these hymns as 
a sort of common literature of the church, and thus con- 
founded the errorists. 

The case of the arch-heretic Paul of Samosata, who 
was deposed for denying the divinity of Christ, and other 
offenses, by the Council of Antioch, A. D. 269, has been 
often employed in this controversy. The decision of the 
Council, translated from Eusebius by Milner, so far as it 
refers to Psalmody, is as follows: "He suppressed the 
Psalms made in honor of Jesus Christ, and called them, 
modern compositions — and he directed others to be sung 
in the church in his own commendation." || Neander 
states the facts thus — " The church hymns which had 
been in use since the second century, he banished as an 
innovation, * * * on the principle that only passages out 
of the Holy Scripture ought to be sung ; and thus he 

* See his Apology, c. 8. 

j- Ecclesiastical History, lib. 5 : 28. 

t See Neander. 

|| Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 230. 



202 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

probably suffered nothing but the Psalms to be used." 
This opposition to " the church hymns" by the heretic 
Paul, as well as his agreement with the Arians of the 
period of the Council of Laodicea, in preferring the naked 
Psalms, is not difficult of explanation. Why do all such 
heretics of the present day hate and oppose creeds and 
confessions ? Why do they denounce them as profane 
additions to the word of God, which they claim as the 
only and all-sufficient creed ? They all profess, like 
Arius, when arraigned before the Council of Nice (A. 
D. 325), to believe the Scriptures. " But it soon appear* 
ed," says Milner, " that without some explanatory terms 
decisively pointing out what the Scriptures had revealed, 
it was impossible to guard against the subtleties of the 
Arians." * They were ready to adopt the strongest 
terms employed in the Scriptures to designate the di- 
vinity of Christ, even "God"— "the true God," &c, 
because they received them with their own interpreta- 
tions. But the Council at length drove Arius and his 
party out of all their hiding places, by employing such 
forms of confessing Christ as even the arch-heretic could 
not receive. 

In these facts we discover the secret of the hostility of 
Paul and his friends to the " hymns of the churches," 
and their decided preference for the naked text of Da- 
vid — just as the Jew and the modern Arian are quite 
willing to sing the simple words of the second Psalm — 
but what Jew would accept for worship Dr. Watts' para- 
phrase of it ? And the same is true of the Arian. But 
is not this the same as saying that the inspired Psalms 
are adapted to the propagation of fundamental error ? 
No more than the same thing is asserted of the ichole 
Scriptures by all who employ creeds as tests of sound- 
ness in the faith. Painful facts prove that the Holy 
Scriptures are not a sufficient safeguard against the in- 
trusion of heresy — and therefore other tests are adopted. 
What is true of the sacred volume, is true of all its 
• Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 280 



HYMNS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 203 

parts, even of the Psalms. Paul and his Arian brethren 
knew this, and, therefore, they had the same preference 
for those Psalms over the more explicit " hymns of the 
church," as modern heretics express for " the Bible as 
their creed," over the acknowledged symbols of sound 
Protestant churches. For such reasons as these, the her- 
etic Paul of Samosata " banished the church hymns," 
which expressly and beyond all controversy ascribed di- 
vinity to Christ, and he adopted the " principle that only 
passages of Scripture ought to be sung, and probably suf- 
fered nothing but Psalms (of David) to be used." Such 
is the testimony of Neander, the greatest of modern his- 
torians. As to Paul's having on one occasion (Easter) 
required hymns to be sung in his own praise, it was a 
separate offense, and so dealt with by the Council. It is 
not intimated that such was his common practice, nor 
that he ordinarily enjoined songs in honor of himself, 
in the room of the worship of God. In view of such 
evidence as this, we leave the reader to decide between 
Dr. Pressly and Dr. M' Master; the former of whom 
says, that " the daring impiety of Paul was manifested 
in his taking such liberty with the Psalms whose author 
is the Holy Spirit" — but the latter (Dr. M'M.) says— 
"Paulus refused to celebrate the Deity of Christ in a 
modern hymn" * The whole history of ancient hymnol- 
ogy goes to establish the truth of the statement of Nean- 
der, and he but expresses the views of the translator of 
Mosheim, and of all ecclesiastical historians, so far as fa- 
miliar to the writer. The recent attempt to give the sub- 
ject a different aspect, arose out of the exigencies of the 
Psalmody controversy. 

The case of Paul of Samosata possesses importance in 
this discussion, from the following truths, which it clear- 
ly establishes : 

1. Paul found in common use, certain "church hymns," 

* Paulus probably found " less difficulty in accommodating or per- 
verting the Biblical Psalms to his Socinian opinions, than the modern 
hymns composed expressly in honor of the Son of God." — Biblical Re- 
pertory, 1829. 



204 LETTERS ON PSALMODY. 

handed down from the second century, perhaps of even 
earlier date. 

2. These hymns were very full and express in pro- 
claiming the Divine nature of Christ, and in offering 
him Divine worship — all which Paul abhorred. 

3. In order to propagate his errors, this able and art- 
ful heretic felt it to be indispensable to abolish the use 
of these hymns. 

4. In their place he enjoined the exclusive use of pas- 
sages of Scripture, probably of the Psalms ; at the 
same time denouncing the hymns as " modern composi- 
tions," and human inventions. 

In conclusion, " we have all the evidence which speci- 
mens of undoubted antiquity can afford, that such scrip- 
tural hymns were early composed and used by Christians." 
Such is the testimony of the learned editors of the "Bib- 
lical Repertory" (for 1829), to which the reader is referred 
for many examples. The same authorities cite several 
most learned commentators to prove that Ephesians 5 : 
14 — "Awake thou that sleepest," &c, 1 Timothy 3: 16, 
2 Timothy 2 : 11-13, are quotations from hymns in 
common use when the apostle wrote. The passage in 
Ephesians 5 : 14 is expressly given by the apostle as a 
quotation, without any reference to its author or origin. 
Grotius and many others, regard the passage, Acts 4 : 
24-30, as a hymn, and Augustine calls it, "the first Chris- 
tian Psalm." It was probably chanted after the manner 
of the Jews in their synagogues. "And Philo, a cotem- 
porary of the Apostles, is reported by Nicephorus to 
have testified that the primitive Christians, after the time 
of Christ and the apostles, sang in their public worship 
not only the Psalms of David and other poems of Scrip- 
ture, but also hymns or odes composed by themselves."* 
" It has been demonstrated," says the learned Bingham,*)* 
" that there were always such Psalms, and hymns, and 
doxologies composed by the pious (not inspired) men, and 
used in the church from the first foundation of it. Nor 

* Biblical Repertory, 1S29, pp. 526-539. 
f Origines Ecclesiasticse, vol. 4 ; p. 443. 



HYMNS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 205 

did any but Paul of Samosata except against the use of 
them, which he did, because they contained a doctrine 
contrary to his own private opinions/' Many of the ex- 
tracts from early writers to prove these points, may be 
seen in the original languages, in Lord Chancellor King's 
" Enquiry into the Constitution and Worship of the 
Primitive Church/' and still more fully in the great work 
of Bingham, quoted in the margin. Thus ecclesiastical 
history unites with the Holy Scriptures in condemning 
the exclusive system as an innovation upon apostolical in- 
stitutions. 

In view of the mass of evidence in these Letters, we 
cannot but indulge the hope that the needless and hurtful 
divisions and alienations originating in Psalmody, will 
soon cease. When that happy period shall arrive, these 
honored fathers and brethren whom we are now con- 
strained to withstand, will be glad to copy the safe ex- 
ample of the ancient church of Scotland, and unite with 
her humble representative, the Presbyterian church — in 
their New Testament ascriptions of praise to the incom- 
prehensible Jehovah, the Glorious Trinity in Unity — 
" the King eternal, immortal and invisible, the only 
wise God." Nor will it any longer be regarded as " a 
corruption of Divine worship/' to say with Sternhold 
and Hopkins, and the early Scottish church : 

To Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, 
All glory be therefore ; 
As in beginning was, is now, 
And shall be evermore : 

And with Dr. Watts at the close of his hymns — " I 
cannot persuade myself to put a full period to these Di- 
vine hymns, till I have addressed a special song of glory 
to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." 

Thus did our Scottish forefathers delight to celebrate 
the praises of the adorable Trinity, which, as Dr. Watts 
expresses it, " is that ■peculiar glory of the Divine nature, 
that our Lord Jesus Christ has so clearly revealed to men, 
and is so necessary to true Christianity." 
18 



APPENDIX. 

After most of the foregoing Treatise was written, 
there appeared in Philadelphia a volume entitled " The 
True Psalmody/' which seems to demand a brief notice. 

On the 16th of August, 1858, as we are told in the 
advertisement, a meeting was held in that city, which ap- 
pointed Rev. J. M. Willson, J. T. Cooper and R. J. Black 
a committee "to prepare a work in favor of the exclusive 
use of the Scripture Psalmody." At a subsequent meet- 
ing, this committee reported such a treatise, and were 
unanimously authorized to publish it. Hence the volume 
called "True Psalmody," which professes to be "largely 
a compilation" from the treatises of Dr. M'Master, 
Pressly and others. Of course most of its arguments 
have been anticipated in the foregoing Letters. We add 
a few strictures. 

1. The volume bears marks of haste. Thus, p. 117, 
we are told of "a touching hymn " with the title, " Veni 
Sancta Spiritus," "composed by King Robert of France, 
and in which all his gentle nature seems to speak." 
This professes to be a quotation from a volume called 
"The Voice of Christian Life." The committee should 
have corrected the bad grammar, either of King Robert 
or of the author of "The Voice." " Sancta Spiritus" is 
an unfortunate attempt at Latin. 

Again : The running title of the work from p. 71 to 
p. 183, is "Hymns unwarranted." But here is a labored 
attempt to prove that when Paul speaks of " Psalms, 
hymns and spiritual songs," Ephesians 5 : 19, he intend- 
ed by all these terms, only "David's Psalms." If this 
be so, then it follows that we have inspired authority to 
call "the Psalms" hymns! But the title of the book 
repeats more than a hundred times, "hymns unwarrant- 
ed" — "hymns unwarranted," &c. It is only from other 
(206) 



REVIEW OF TRUE PSALMODY. 207 

parts we learn that the committee mean "uninspired 
hymns," thus escaping the odium of having placed their 
ban upon David's hymns, as well as all the rest. 

2. in their "Introduction" they say — "We believe 
most firmly * * * that this (the book of Psalms) 
should be in a literal translation sung in the worship of 
God." This is said while its authors use constantly 
"Rouse's paraphrase." Of course they do not sing a 
translation at all, but a patchwork paraphrase or "large 
explication" as Ralph Erskine defines the term. This 
subject is fully discussed in our first six Letters, where 
will also be found a satisfactory answer to the commit- 
tee's announcement — "we adhere to the very matter pro- 
vided for us by Him whose praises we celebrate." These 
are very extraordinary statements, proceeding as they do 
from a learned committee. How strange that they should 
speak of Rouse as "the very matter provided by God !" 

3. Following in the track of their predecessors, they 
set up "their man of straw" in various instances, and 
belabor it most lustily ! For example, they charge those 
against whom they are arguing, with designing "to super- 
sede the inspired and appointed manual," and to " intro- 
duce other Psalms or hymns" in its stead, pp. 46, 71. 
And their favorite epithets for those with whom they dif- 
fer are, "the friends of human composition" — "advo- 
cates of human Psalmody" — just as though there were 
no human composition in Rouse ! This volume, however, 
is rather more moderate in its phraseology than some we 
have noticed. Though it does not charge us in so many 
words, with "impiously rejecting the songs which God 
has given ;" yet we are reminded of the danger of " of- 
fering strange fire !" The committee seem to have very 
complacently come to the conclusion, that their patch- 
work paraphrases are really "the songs composed in 
heaven." To attempt to disturb this pleasant dream 
would be only to repeat much that has been already said 
in our "Letters." 

4. The materials which the committee have thrown 



208 APPENDIX. 

together in this "compilation," exhibit some curious ex- 
amples of incoherence and discord. Nor is it easy to 
determine, of two or more conflicting sentiments set forth 
with equal zeal and authority, which they wish us to re- 
ceive as their matured convictions. For example, in the 
"Introduction" they plead for — "The book of Psalms 
in a literal translation," "to the exclusion of uninspired 
songs," page 7. But when they reach page 217, their 
proposition is, "the Psalms of Scripture to the exclusion 
of all uninspired songs." But do the committee really 
believe that "the book of Psalms," and "the Psalms of 
Scripture," are identical in meaning? Are there no 
Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in Scripture, except 
in the one book ? Will they venture to maintain so ab- 
surd a proposition ? 

Again : On page 7 of the " Introduction," they plead 
for " the book of Psalms to the exclusion of all unin- 
spired songs." But when they reach page 65, they quote 
a leading author as follows : " It would appear to be the 
Divine will that this (book of Psalms) should be used to 
the exclusion of all others. 77 This of course excludes not 
only "uninspired songs," but "all others" except the 
Psalms of David, both inspired and uninspired ! Which 
side does the committee maintain, or wish us to adopt in 
this conflict of sentiment ? And what is most extraordi- 
nary, on page 133, the committee themselves say — " The 
issue before us is, have we liberty to make and sing * * 
songs other than those of the Bible /" On page 7, it was 
" the book of Psalms to the exclusion of all uninspired 
songs," but when they arrive at page 133, they forsake 
their first position, "the book of Psalms," and are found 
arguing against " songs other than those of the Bible" — 
where of course they take under their protection not only 
"the book of Psalms," but "the songs of the Bible" 
generally, as well as those of the book of Psalms ! The 
leading author whom they quote with so much approba- 
tion, says it appears to be " the Divine will 77 to exclude 
"all others" but "the Psalms;" but not so the commit- 



REVIEW OF TRUE PSALMODY. 209 

tee when they arrive at page 133. They then say, it is 
" songs other than those of the Bible," against which 
they contend ! At one time, it is " the book of Psalms " 
exclusively for which they are valiant — but at another 
" the songs of the Bible," including, of course, all songs 
in the Bible — in defense of which they have unsheathed 
the sword of controversy ! And still more to confound 
this confusion, the committee tell us near the close of 
the book (p. 217), "We have kept hut one definite prop- 
osition before us — the Psalms of Scripture, the church's 
sufficient and appointed manual of praise." So that this 
oracle of " True Psalmody " greatly needs an interpreter 
to expound its responses. 

5. This " True Psalmody " is largely employed with 
objections to "uninspired hymns." "They have led," 
the committee tell us, " to the abandonment of congre- 
gational singing ;" and " in domestic worship," they 
strongly intimate, " there is comparatively little use of 
sacred songs." These are unquestionably great evils ; 
and so far as they exist among the advocates of hymns, 
deserve to be condemned. But have the committee 
traced these evils to the true cause, viz. the use of hymns? 
In a foot note they admit a fact which entirely spoils 
their argument. "The Methodist denominations" not 
Only "retain congregational singing," as the committee 
concede — but as every one knows, make more use of song 
in Divine worship than all the other denominations put 
together ! Yet these same Methodists do not sing " the 
Psalms" at all, but only hymns ! The logic of " The 
True Psalmody" is sadly at fault here. Again, " the use 
of hymns endangers the church's purity : they have 
been used in diffusing error and heresy." But has not 
the pulpit been often used for the same purposes ? Do 
not men wrest Scripture to their own destruction ? Are 
the Scriptures and public preaching therefore to be dis- 
carded as dangerous to the purity of the church ? Has 
not " the grace of God" often been abused to licentious- 
ness? What, then, becomes of the committee's argu- 
18* 



210 APPENDIX. 

ment ? Do not the Arians of Ulster sing and explain 
" Rouse's paraphrase" so as " to diffuse error and here- 
sy?" Of course the use and explanation of "Rouse's 
paraphrase" should be abandoned as endangering the pu* 
rity of the church ! 

6. From page 73 to page 96, we have a labored at- 
tempt from the pen of Dr. Cooper, to prove that Paul's 
" Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" (Ephesians 5 : 19) 
must mean the Psalms of David exclusively. Dr. C. is no 
bad special pleader — but we merely refer him to the de- 
cision of Ralph Erskine, quoted in one of our Letters. 
He will there find the unbiassed judgment of a prince 
among the original fathers of Dr. C's. division of the 
United Presbyterian church, viz. that Ephesians 5 : 19, 
Colossians 3 : 16, contain " a Divine precept" for sing- 
ing such human paraphrases as Erskine composed on 
" Solomon's Song." As Ralph Erskine had no peculiar 
dogma to defend, it is quite probable he was right, and 
Dr. C. altogether wrong. 

In the same connection it is argued that "the sayings 
of Mary and the prophecy of Zacharias" (Luke 1) are 
no " precedents" in favor of New Testament songs — ■ 
" for," they tell us, " of Mary it is merely stated that 
she 'said;' her utterances are not styled a song; nor is 
there any evidence that she sang them." 

Now as this argument has been employed in Pitts- 
burgh, * as well as Philadelphia, it is worth a moment's 
attention. " Mary did not sing — she only said." But 
in Revelation 5: 9, we read — " they sung a new song, 
saying, Thou art worthy," &c. Hence it follows, that the 
four living creatures, and the four and twenty elders, did 
not sing at all — they only said ! For other examples 
see Revelation 4 : 10, 5 : 12, 7 : 10-12. Try the same 
argument with some of the Psalms. " David spake unto 
the Lord the words of this song." Psalm 18. Did Da- 
vid say or sing ? Or is Psalm 18 a song ? Again : " I 
said , I will take heed to my ways." Psalm 39. Of 
* Pressly on Psalmody, p. 44. 



REVIEW OF TRUE PSALMODY. 211 

course this Psalm is not to be sung, for David only 
" said " it ! Again : Psalm 55 — " Sing forth the honor 
of his name — make his praise glorious. Say unto God, 
how terrible art thou." The committee can perhaps de- 
cide whether this Psalm, like the 18th, is to be said or 
sung, since both terms are used ! 

Again : To account for the fact, asserted but not 
proved, " that singing praise has been dropped so exten- 
sively in connection with the use of hymns," the com- 
mittee say " the idea of worship has ceased to no inconsid- 
erable extent to be attached to the singing of hymns." 
To prove this extraordinary assertion, they quote u S. 
D." in the "Presbyterian," thus: "Protestants and Papists 
alike sing to creatures." " We sing to all sorts of inferior 
creatures, especially to sinners." But if this is sound 
argument, we wonder the committee have not long since 
" dropped the use of the Psalms ! " Take this example 
from Psalm 52 : 

Why dost thou boast, mighty man, 
Of mischief and of ill. 
Thy tongue mischievous calumnies 
Deviseth subtilely. 

If any worse example of " singing to creatures, espe- 
cially to sinners," can be found in our hymns, we have 
never discovered it. Again, Psalm 94 : 8 — 

Ye brutish people, understand ! 
Fools ! when wise will ye grow ? 

For more of this dreadful evil of " singing to creatures 
and to sinners," see Psalms 49, 58, 62, 66, 67, 2, 4, 
9, 10, and many others. If Dr. Cooper and his brethren 
will practice the doctrine they preach, and drop all such 
Psalms as these, we will begin to think they feel the force 
of their own argument. By their own showing, the 
Psalms of David " contribute influences to mislead the 
minds and corrupt the hearts of sinful men," equally in 
this particular with our hymns ! When our Assembly 
shall issue an expurgated edition of our hymns, Dr. C. 
and his brethren of course will be found expurgating 



212 APPENDIX. 

David ! Our system, they tell us, " needs amending and 
purging," p. 155. We reply, by your own showing, so 
does David ! 

On page 69, adopting the words of a leading au- 
thor, the committee say — " One thing is certain, that 
neither our Lord nor his apostles have furnished any 
Psalms and songs for the use of the church." The com- 
mittee surely do not think that saying " it is certain" — 
is the same as proving their proposition. But no man 
who carefully reads the New Testament, can for a mo- 
ment doubt that there are many " songs" of praise in 
that volume ; such for example, as those of Mary, and 
Simeon, and Zacharias, as well as those recorded in the 
Acts, the Epistles and the Revelation. Scores of pas- 
sages can be readily adduced, having much more of the 
attributes of sacred "song," viz. sublime devotion and 
poetical excellence, than many of the more prosaic parts 
of the book of Psalms. This is so obvious, the wonder is 
that it has ever been called in question. All that is neces- 
sary is to have some poet, such as Rouse or Watts, to par- 
aphrase these beautiful passages in verse and metre — and 
we have a volume of New Testament " songs." How 
strange that good men should venture to affirm that 
u our Lord and his apostles have furnished no songs for 
the church !" And this rash assertion includes " the new 
song," Rev. 5 : 9-14, recorded by the apostle John. 
It will not do to say " it is certain this 'new song' 
was not furnished for the use of the church." That is 
the very point to be proved ; and which never was and 
never will be proved. The commentators teach a very 
different lesson. 

To make this reasoning still more obvious, look at a 
few examples. Can any one doubt that there are many 
passages in the New Testament, at least, as worthy to be 
called " songs " and versified for purposes of praise as 
the following : 

At evening they go to and fro : 
They make great noise and sound, 



Or these : 



REVIEW OF TRUE PSALMODY. 213 

Like to a dog, and often walk 
About the city round. 

And let them wander up and down 

In seeking food to eat; 

And let them grudge when they shall not 

Be satisfied with meat. 

"Whose belly with thy treasure hid 
Thou filFst — they children have 
In plenty. Of their goods the rest, 
They to their children leave. 

When they me saw, they from me fled; 
E'en so I am forgot 
As men are out of mind when dead: 
I'm like a broken pot. 

These and scores of similar stanzas, are parts of songs 
of "Divine institution" — but the songs of the New Tes- 
tament : " None are furnished !" But, say the commit- 
tee, Prof. Alexander, of Princeton, affirms that all "the 
Psalms " are "songs, poems intended to be sung, and with 
a musical accompaniment •" and that " they are intended 
to be permanently used in the worship of God." But in 
what manner are they to be " permanently used ?" What 
did Prof. A. mean by this language ? " The learned and 
highly esteemed Professor" constantly uses our "Psalms 
and hymns," and in all probability never sung five stan- 
zas of Rouse in his life ! Yet the committee venture to 
quote him as favoring their notions of "a correct and 
literal translation ! " The " permanent use " advocated 
by Prof. A. does not help the cause of " True Psalmo- 
dy !" And then as to "the musical accompaniment," 
which the Professor says was also "intended " — the com- 
mittee shrink from it with horror. 

The committee endeavor to make a little capital out of 
the fact, that some hymns in frequent use were the pro- 
ductions of men who gave no evidence of being regene- 
rated ; and that Tom Moore's hymn beginning — " Come 
ye disconsolate, where'er ye languish" — is found in our 
collection. It can not be denied that our hymns in gen- 
eral are from Christian pens, from such eminent authors 



214 APPENDIX. 

as "Watts, Newton, Toplady, Cowper, Heber, Montgomery, 
&c. But one of these songs is the production of Tom 
Moore — that is " the dead fly in the ointment/' Let us 
inquire whether nothing can be said in palliation of so 
great an enormity. 

(1.) Do these brethren never worship God by reading 
or otherwise uttering the prayer of Baalam : " Let me 
die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be 
like his?" Numbers 23 : 10. Have they never wor- 
shiped God by reading from the pulpit his prophecies — 
" There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall 
rise out of Israel," &c? Are these prophecies and this 
prayer the worse, because their author was not a regene- 
rate man? 

(2.) Is not a large part of the book of Job the utter- 
ance of error ? Does not the Lord tell Eliphaz — " My 
wrath is kindled against thee and against thy two friends; 
for ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right?" 
Chapter 42 : 7. But do not these brethren worship God 
by reading publicly these false sentiments ? 

(3.) When "the devils," in various instances, ac- 
knowledged Jesus to be the true Messiah, " the Holy 
One of God," he did not command them to be silent — 
he did not refuse a recognition of his Divine character 
and mission even from " devils." Yet our brethren wor- 
ship God by reading from their pulpits these just and 
true ascriptions of honor to Christ, though their authors 
were the devils ! Is not this almost as bad as singing a 
hymn of Tom Moore ? If the committee feel no 
"compunctious visitings" while worshiping God in the 
language of " Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the 
wages of unrighteousness," (2 Peter 2 : 15,) with the false 
sentiments of Job's friends, against whom God's "wrath 
was kindled " — and even in the language of " the devils" 
of the New Testament — then what becomes of their ar- 
gument? Doubtless even wicked men are sometimes 
deeply impressed with Divine things, as Balaam was, 
and are so under the teaching of the Holy Spirit as to 



REVIEW OF TRUE PSALMODY. 215 

utter many most valuable and interesting truths. And 
if, after the manner of Balaam, they possess the most 
elevated poetic talents — we think the scriptural exam- 
ples do not condemn the occasional use of their utterances 
in public worship. Certainly the committee are not in 
a position " to cast the first stone " at us Presbyterians. 

6. The "True Psalmody" has much to say against 
"uninspired songs/' "human composition/' &c. And 
the committee say they "are certainly at liberty to pro- 
nounce very decidedly the Scottish version (" Rouse's 
paraphrase ") to be an accurate rendering of the orig- 
inal/' Not to repeat what has already been said in our 
Letters, take these specimens from Psalm 102 : 6 — 

Like pelican in wilderness 
Forsaken I have been. 
I like an owl in desert am 
That nightly there doth moan. 

Will these brethren inform us where they find in 
" the original," the second and fourth of these lines ? 
And the same is true of hundreds of similar stanzas. 
They are specimens of Rouse's composition. Yet Dr. P. 
speaks of Rouse as " the Divine songs in this version/' 
including, of course, all the sentiment and verbiage 
which he has added to the inspired text ! The commit- 
tee must not be surprised to hear from every intelligent 
Presbyterian, in reply to such argument — "Physician, 
heal thyself." And are they certain Rouse was " a re- 
generate person?" If not — "how dare they sing his 
effusions ?" 

7. The closing chapter of " The True Psalmody" is em- 
ployed in lauding " the version," i. e. Rouse's poetry. 
But in addition to the testimony of Dr. Cooper and others 
adduced in our Letters, we have room only for the follow- 
ing : At the General Assembly of the United Presbyte- 
rian church at Xenia, in May, 1859, a resolution was 
adopted, "'that the version of the book of Psalms 
(Rouse) now used by the United Presbyterian church, be 
retained, without any change that would affect its integ- 



216 APPENDIX. 

rity." In the debate on this resolution, as reported in 
" The Preacher," the Rev. Mr. Van Eaton said— " He 
could not be brought to express any admiration for its 
blemishes, its positive ugliness. * * * The version was 
not argued against — it was simply laughed at. Those 
who had not been educated to it from childhood, could 
not use it at all. It had been said that other versions, 
and collections of hymns, were sectarian. The Psalms 
were catholic, but the version was sectarian. It was just 
as certain as doom, that if the United Presbyterian 
church were bound down to the old version, she becomes 
exclusively an old country church, Scotch-Irish, and 
nothing more. The Psalms were God's Psalms — were 
inspired — but the version was not inspired. He hoped 
the church would not clog herself with this old and 
imperfect version." Comment is needless. 

We here dismiss " The True Psalmody." We have 
endeavored to give the work that " careful investigation," 
that " devout and prayerful examination," which the 
committee recommend to "the candid inquirer after 
truth and duty." p. 11. If the result has not been such as 
they seem to have anticipated, it is no fault of ours. 



NOTE. 

Dr. James Latta.— "The True Psalmody," p. 162, exhibits Dr. 
L., whose "Discourse on Psalmody" is out of print, as "in the service 
of the infidel," viz. by "representing the Psalms of the Bible as un- 
christian in spirit, in doctrine — unfit for devotion, tending to make 
heretics," &c. Very different is the judgment of the late venerable 
and excellent Dr. Miller, Professor in the Theological Seminary at 
Princeton. He says — " Dr. Latta, for talents and learning, as well 
as piety, held a high place among the clergy of his day. He pub- 
lished a s Discourse on Psalmody/ which ' does honor to his memory.' n 
Memoir of Dr. Rodgers, p. 178. Every reader can decide which of 
these witnesses is the more likely to be true. Dr. Miller certainly 
never could have apologized for any " utterances against the word of 
God," either by Dr. Latta, or any other author. 

~17 KtbJ86() 
■ *> — 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



6/ 



